Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

European Defence

Sir Sydney Chapman: When he plans to meet the US Defence Secretary to discuss European security and defence policy. [148218]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on European defence co-operation. [148219]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I met the United States Defence Secretary on 3 February at the annual security conference, in Munich. European security and defence was one of several issues that we discussed. On 14–15 December 2000, the North Atlantic Council welcomed the conclusions on European defence of the European Council, at Nice. The Council re-affirmed its determination to reinforce NATO's European pillar and stated that it shared the goal endorsed

by European Union member states at Nice of a genuine strategic partnership in crisis management between NATO and the EU.

Sir Sydney Chapman: In view of the Secretary of State's very last comment and the fact that the Prime Minister said last week that it would be his policy to strengthen defence inside NATO, can the Secretary of State explain how those comments square with the St. Malo Anglo-French agreement, which asserted:
The European Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces",
and
recourse to sustainable military means … outside the NATO framework"?
Is not that yet another example of prime ministerial double-speak, and will it not be Government double-speak?

Mr. Hoon: It has always been quite clear that any significant operation involving the European Union would look, first of all, to NATO for its operational planning and, indeed, for NATO assets. Equally, however, it has always been recognised, as is the case today of course, that individual member states might join other EU member states for small operations distant from NATO—for example, ones involving humanitarian relief, which is central to the Petersberg tasks. In those circumstances, the St. Malo agreement is wholly consistent with the current position. Indeed, it is wholly consistent with the position that the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly supported when the previous Government were in office.

Mr. Waterson: When the Foreign Secretary said last week that the European defence force would remain "securely anchored" in NATO, how did that sit with the documents signed at Nice, which said that
the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU",


and that NATO will only be "informed of the developments"? Are not the Government, as always, saying different things to different audiences?

Mr. Hoon: No, they are not. It is clear that decisions taken by the European Union can be taken only by European Union member states. In a sense, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is stating the obvious. As I said to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), there will be circumstances in which—for small, humanitarian-type operations, consistent with the Petersberg tasks—the European Union may well choose to act alone, as member states could do now.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are committed to a strong future for NATO, the United Kingdom Government must use their key position in Europe and their special relationship with the United States to prevent and deal with misunderstandings and to help to deliver a stronger European Union defence capability? Does he also agree that the two things that threaten NATO's future most are, first, European nations not delivering greater operational effectiveness for NATO; and, secondly, the anti-European rantings and scaremongering of Conservative Members?

Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we maintain a strong defence within NATO, and that we strengthen NATO's European pillar. That argument was first advanced by President Kennedy on behalf of the United States, and successive United States Administrations, including the new one, have made it quite clear that it is vital that the Europeans are more capable of being responsible for their own defence. Sadly, Conservative Members want to be completely isolated, not only in the European Union, but in the wider European area. Of the 25 states gathered together in the aftermath of the Brussels capability conference, not one did not want to participate in improving European defence; in the unlikely event of Conservative Members ever again taking power in the United Kingdom, this country would be the only one in the whole of Europe.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on Friday, President Chirac said that development of European security and defence
se fait et ne peut que se faire en complete harmonie avec I'OTAN.
In English, that means that European security and defence can be carried out only in complete agreement with NATO. Is it not a disgrace that, this week, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), will travel to Washington to tell lies about European defence—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister needs to answer that question.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the Secretary of State agree that the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States on defence and security issues goes beyond NATO, is deeper than that between any other two NATO partners, and that development of a common European security policy should in no way necessarily break that special relationship? Is it not also true that the best way of ensuring the survival of the

Atlantic alliance is for the United Kingdom to be the lead nation in developing the European defence and security policy? Will he pursue that matter?

Mr. Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that series of comments. It is vital that we maintain our excellent relationship with the United States and, indeed, with the new United States Administration. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in the United States in the past week. In the course of a number of conversations with various members of the new Administration, positive support was given to the efforts that European nations are making to improve their contribution to NATO. Specifically, Secretary of State Powell said:
I can tell you that within the Bush Administration the President and I and Secretary Rumsfeld and Dr Rice and others think we have a very good understanding of what the European Security and Defence Initiative is all about: an effort on the part of our European friends to increase their capability for rapid reaction in Europe and wherever the need might arise. And we support that goal.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State now wants to claim anyone who has ever spoken vaguely about anything in the past. He is claiming President Kennedy; soon, no doubt, it will be Napoleon and Alexander the Great. Is not the reality that, at that very meeting, the US Defence Secretary raised serious concerns? Are not my hon. Friends right when they talk about the Government leading the process from start to finish, hand in hand with the French and the Germans? Will he comment on the fact that, today, Mr. Scharping has said:
As the European Union develops its security and defence policy and becomes an independent actor, we must determine our security policy with Russia, our biggest neighbour"?
Is not the reality that the Foreign Secretary has gone to Washington, spinning the Americans a load of nonsense about what the Government signed, but that he cannot admit that the safeguards that he guarantees to Washington are simply not there?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the words he has just used, he will see that they amount to everyone else in history, and currently, being wrong apart from the present Conservative party. If the Conservatives thought more carefully about how isolated they are on matters European, it might give them some credibility when addressing the issues. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman talks about isolation when he cannot find a single country anywhere in the European continent that supports his position on European defence. That is pretty desperate.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State never bothers with the facts. At Nice, the Government signed some undertakings: first, that EU forces would be both autonomous and independent of NATO; secondly, that the planning of operations would take place outside of NATO; thirdly, that the EU will make the first decision on what it will do and then may consult NATO; and, finally, that political and strategic control of the forces will stay with the EU, not within NATO Is not the reality that the Government are, as ever, saying one thing and doing


another? In Washington, they are saying, "Trust us, we will stop this happening", while back in Europe, they are saying, "Don't worry boys, we love everything about it"?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman wants to deal in the facts, he had better get them right. It has been made clear that operational planning will be a matter for NATO and there will be agreement between the EU and NATO to ensure that we do not develop duplicate facilities. Operational planning will be the firm responsibility of NATO. That has been agreed between NATO and the EU and is part of the underpinning that we have negotiated to ensure that there is no inconsistency between European defence in the EU and European defence as part of NATO.

KFOR

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the involvement of KFOR as a consequence of Albanian insurgency into Macedonia and southern Serbia. [148220]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We can be justly proud of the contribution British forces make to the multinational effort to bring peace and stability to Kosovo.
Our forces continue to play a pivotal role in the NATO-led multinational force in creating a stable environment in which the UN mission can carry out its vital work in developing civil society and local administration.
KFOR troops continue to monitor closely ethnic Albanian extremism in southern Serbia, and its operations to interdict men and material crossing the administrative boundary have been stepped up. In recent weeks, British forces have made a significant contribution to preventing ethnic violence and lawlessness, both in the region bordering the Presevo valley in Serbia, and in Mitrovica, where extremists persist in their attempts to block progress towards a peaceful multi-ethnic society.
In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, policing and internal security remains a matter for the FYROM authorities. However, there has been dialogue between KFOR and FYROM on border security issues, and NATO has offered advice.

Mr. Dalyell: Why is it that marauding Albanians, rightly apprehended by British members of KFOR, are dispatched to the Americans at camp Bondsteel?

Mr. Spellar: Forces operating in Multinational Brigade (East) are reinforcing the United States efforts but are, of course, under the control of MNB(E). Camp Bondsteel is the main centre for that. We do not have sufficient facilities available there to detain those numbers of people.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Have the new United States Administration given any indication about whether they intend to withdraw their forces from Kosovo? If they have, or they do so in the near future, are European forces capable of filling the gap?

Mr. Spellar: The United States Administration have clearly indicated that they are evaluating their worldwide

commitments. They have also indicated that they will not be taking any precipitous action, particularly in the Balkans, and that they will have discussions with allies on any changes that they might propose, following the evaluation that any new Administration would quite naturally make.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My hon. Friend may be aware that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was in Yugoslavia last week. We heard some very positive proposals by the Yugoslav Government to try to defuse the problems in the Presevo valley and to allow co-operation between the Yugoslav army and KFOR to deal with extremists while bringing moderate Albanians in Presevo more fully into public life in Yugoslavia. How are we responding to those proposals and making sure that KFOR responds positively as well?

Mr. Spellar: I understand that the Foreign Affairs Committee was impressed with the work being undertaken in Kosovo. We certainly welcome Belgrade's willingness to address these issues constructively and have noted Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Covic's proposals. NATO has taken these concerns seriously. We are also considering further measures and the NATO Secretary-General has had an exchange of letters with President Kostunica.

Mr. Martin Bell: Clearly, there are no quick fixes in the Balkans but there may be slow fixes. Will the Minister assure the House that the professionalism and dedication of British troops on the ground will be matched by the determination and support of the Government for as long as it takes?

Mr. Spellar: Yes.

Strategic Defence Review

Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the strategic defence review. [148221]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Ministry of Defence is continuing to make excellent progress in implementing the long-term programme set out in the strategic defence review. More than half of the key measures have already been completed. The large majority of the remainder are on track and we remain committed to ensuring that the strategic defence review is implemented in full.

Mr. Colman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in implementing the SDR, the Government have had to take account of failings in defence equipment brought into service under the previous Government? Is he aware that since the review, and as a result of the significant new investment that this Government have made, those failings are either being repaired or have been repaired, and that the Chief of the Defence Staff himself, Sir Charles Guthrie, has confirmed that British forces are well equipped?

Mr. Hoon: May I take this opportunity of publicly congratulating the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Charles Guthrie, on his impending retirement? I thank him on


behalf of the four Secretaries of State for Defence whom he has served under two Governments. Most importantly, however, I thank him on behalf of the British people and Her Majesty's armed forces for a career of distinguished and unfailing service.
Sir Charles Guthrie has said that British forces are now better equipped that any time in his long and distinguished career. Indeed, his successor, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, has indicated that the Royal Navy currently has the best forward programme of warship building than at any stage in his naval career.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, instead of expanding the regular Army by 3,000, as planned in the strategic defence review, the numbers have dropped slightly, and that the proportion of soldiers who are unfit for combat service has increased? Will he also confirm that we have a shortfall of one sixth—17 per cent.—in RAF fast-jet pilots, an even larger proportionate shortfall in Royal Navy fast-jet pilots and that the serviceability across all our major classes of aeroplanes has declined since the SDR was published?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman gives an accurate account of the problems that we inherited. We have sought to resolve several issues, not least improving retention. Recruitment remains buoyant for the Army, and we are on track to deliver the manning required by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force under the strategic defence review.
There is a short-term problem with fast-jet pilots. We have sought to address that through the recent armed forces' pay review body, and have accepted its recommendations in their entirety, specifically the recommendation on extra payments for fast-jet pilots. We shall address the longer-term problems by seeking to train more pilots to fill the many aircraft that we look forward to procuring for the RAF and Royal Navy.

Mr. John McFall: One of the aims of the strategic defence review was improvement of performance in the public service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that the work force at Clyde submarine base, in my constituency, have shown commitment and loyalty over the years. Given the latest exercise in saving on expenditure, can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will take seriously the combined trade union response on the future of the work force? Can he assure me that he will not hand the work force lock, stock and barrel to Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd. or the private sector, but have a public-private partnership to improve the stability and efficiency of the base now and in the future?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I have held a meeting to discuss proposals to make our systems of warship maintenance and support still more efficient. I have received various suggestions from him and from the trade unions. We are also working closely with the employers to ensure that whatever support we give to the Royal Navy will be the best value for the taxpayer.

Mr. Robert Key: May I associate Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition with the Secretary of State's thanks to the Chief of the Defence Staff? I congratulate

General Sir Charles Guthrie on his retirement and his distinguished career. I am sorry that he is retiring, as he told us this weekend that the European Union rapid reaction force would not have a fighting role during his lifetime and that the military should not be undermined by barmy ideas. Why is the Secretary of State determined to ignore his chief military adviser and press ahead with deeply unpopular plans to peg military pay to politically correct targets rather than military effectiveness?

Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about General Sir Charles Guthrie, but he should put Sir Charles's comments in the correct context. The Chief of the Defence Staff was, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, referring to war-fighting capability, and the Government agree with what he said. War-fighting is the kind of activity that we expect NATO to carry out as a result of our collective defence obligations. General Sir Charles Guthrie was quite right to refer to the fact that it is unlikely that the EU will have a war-fighting role. European defence is about crisis management and the Petersberg tasks, not war-fighting.

Defence Budget

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What the level of underspending in the defence budget is. [148222]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The latest forecasts are for expenditure to match the total to be sought in the spring supplementary estimates.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Given that the Government have cut £5 billion from the defence budget since 1997, will the Secretary of State guarantee that none of the underspend—amounting to several hundred million pounds—on last year's budget will be returned to the Treasury?

Mr. Hoon: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that he was put up to ask that question by his Front-Bench colleagues, who appear not to understand the way in which departmental budgets work in government. In particular, they do not appear to understand that Departments are responsible to Parliament for their spending. If they understood that, the shadow Defence Secretary might not have told the News of the World that the underspend represented some sort of cut, as the hon. Gentleman's question suggests.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman or his Front-Bench colleagues take a little tutorial from the Library on how departmental underspends are dealt with year on year, particularly for defence. Underspends are carried into the next financial year and are spent on defence. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about underspending, I recommend that he ask the House of Commons Library what the underspend was for 1994–95 and 1995–96. He will find that the underspends then were entirely comparable to the amount that he is concerned about today. I should be interested to know whether he asked any questions about that at the time.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My goodness, the Secretary of State goes on for an awfully long time to say absolutely nothing; he will


not answer the question. Let us take him back to the accounts. As he knows, he wrote to me on 6 February about the News of the World article, and claimed:
There is no question that the total £241 million underspend on the Defence Programme is somehow going to be taken away by the Treasury.
The Secretary of State does not even read his accounts; the figure is about £317 million. The accounts state:
Actual surplus to be surrendered.
So, according to the accounts, that money will be surrendered to the Treasury. The Treasury will decide whether it goes back to the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister for the Armed Forces—sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench—does not even know anyway, but that is to be expected. In the article, the Minister insisted that
unused money would not be given back to the Treasury.
We have got used to the Government being unable to tell us the truth about European defence, but for them to be unable even to tell us the truth about the accounts shows a level of incompetence that is breathtaking.

Mr. Hoon: What is breathtaking about the hon. Gentleman is the level of his ignorance of the way in which government works. If he understood anything about that—after he was elected to the House of Commons, he supported the then Conservative Government for five years—he would know full well that the underspend is available to the Department to carry over into the next year. He would also know—[Interruption.] This should be a matter of concern for Members of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman should know that the reason why there is so much anxiety to ensure that Departments stay within departmental totals is that those totals are approved by Parliament. That is why, year on year—[Interruption.]—and, specifically under the previous Conservative Government, there was a series of underspends to ensure that the MOD stayed within the total granted by Parliament. The matter is not simply that the hon. Gentleman fails to understand how government works—I might expect that, because he is unlikely ever to be in government; he does not understand how the House of Commons works either. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. When Members on the Opposition Front Bench ask a question, I expect them to allow an answer to be made.

Missile Defence Systems

Dr. Vincent Cable: What assessment he has made of the desirability of antimissile defence. [148224]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What expenditure has been incurred at Fylingdales in preparation for national missile defence. [148227]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We continue to assess the potential role of ballistic missile defence systems in countering missile attacks. We have not received a request from the United States to site elements of national missile defence in the

United Kingdom; nor have we incurred expenditure on any works at RAF Fylingdales in preparation for any such request.

Dr. Cable: Why does the Minister think that a proposal originally designed to deter attack from small rogue states is seen as such a major threat to nuclear powers such as Russia and China? If those countries retaliate, as they say they will, by expanding their nuclear capability or nuclear defence—triggering effects in countries such as India—what estimate has he made of how that escalation will affect our own security?

Mr. Hoon: A number of considerations arise in relation to the hon. Gentleman's question. They have been addressed by the US and by this country, in considering the implications of missile defence systems. Clearly, before the US takes a specific decision, it is important that it should consult allies and, indeed, Russia. The new US Administration have made it clear that they would do so—thereby dealing with the type of strategic implications indicated by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that NMD is an extremely dangerous adventure, incredibly expensive for both the United States and any other country that participates in it, and completely at variance with the views of the world court on the legality of nuclear weapons and with the stated aim of the Government that we were in favour of a non-nuclear world in the future? Furthermore, is he aware of the cost of NMD? One 20-missile battery would be 150 per cent. of the cost of the existing British Trident submarine fleet. Does he not think that that is a scandalous waste of money and that we should show more concern for a non-nuclear world than creating the nuclearisation of space and all the dangers that go with it?

Mr. Hoon: No, I do not.

Mr. William Cash: Will the Secretary of State give me a straight answer to a simple question? Given the Nice treaty and the references, which I have seen in the control-and-command system that is being set up, to a nuclear capacity in relation to the use of nuclear weaponry, does he have more confidence in our reliance on the French or on the Americans?

Mr. Hoon: We work closely with our French allies and our United States allies inside NATO. Indeed, as recently as last Friday at the Anglo-French summit, we discussed a range of matters on which we intend to pursue closer co-operation with our French allies—for example, closer co-operation between our two navies, questions of logistics and the ways in which amphibious forces can be organised. We recognise that it is important to establish close co-operation not only with France and the United States, but with the range of allies with whom we have worked closely for a long time.

Mr. Tony Benn: Did the Secretary of State acquaint himself with the views of Admiral Eugene Carroll—a retired American naval admiral, with a very fine record of service over the years—who made it clear at various meetings in the House of Commons that this was not a nuclear missile defence scheme, but a process


under which the United States would aim to dominate the space of the world and be able to destroy any land installation by laser beams; that, inevitably, it is bound to lead to a response by Russia and China; and that it is not at all welcome in Europe, no doubt for that reason? Will he make it clear that to leave the decision until after the election, on the ground that no proposal has yet been made, would not be a very wise decision to take?

Mr. Hoon: I am aware of a number of different opinions in the United States. There is a range of views, both in support of and critical of proposals for missile defence systems. As I have said, there is a range of different proposals. Some of them—perhaps, for the moment, those at the fantastic end of the spectrum—appear to involve proposals with lasers. However, a range of issues is being considered by the present Administration. The only thing that I should emphasise to my right hon. Friend is, of course, that the new United States President was elected specifically on a promise to the American people to go ahead with systems of missile defence and, in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend should not be surprised when, in due course, the United States makes such a proposal.

Mr. John Bercow: Instead of subjecting us to a diet of waffle, prevarication and stonewalling on this crucial issue of public policy, why does not the right hon. Gentleman simply own up to the fact that the reason why he will not state whether in principle he is in favour of national missile defence as a protection for this country against the antics of rogue states is that the Government are deeply split on the matter? Whereas he and his hon. Friends can see the credible advantages of such a system, his right hon. Friend, the former CND fanatic—the Foreign Secretary, no less—is profoundly against it because he has always been and remains a one-sided nuclear and other disarmer?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman should know, of course, that the Government are always of one mind on any given issue. However, let me make it clear to him that the United States has taken no decision on specific missile defence systems and, therefore, there has been no specific request to the United Kingdom regarding the use of any facility here. We share the United States's concerns about missile proliferation; we have worked with the United States for many years on ways to improve defensive systems. As its closest ally, we would, of course, want to respond helpfully should a request be made by the United States. That point has been made in our early discussions with the new US Administration.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that Government policy has not changed since their response to a Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report in which they state that the Government
values the stability which the ABM Treaty provides, and wishes to see it preserved. At no point has the Government given the US Administration reason to assume unqualified UK cooperation with NMD deployment … the Government is strongly in favour of deeper, carefully considered international dialogue on this complex and difficult issue."?

Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that the ABM treaty was concluded between the United States

and Russia? The treaty has been amended in the past and is therefore capable of further amendment should the parties—the United States and Russia—choose to make further amendments. We certainly value a degree of strategic control should that be appropriate, and as part of the consultation process that the United States has suggested we will urge that the United States and Russia look to a degree of strategic control for the future. However, as I said in relation to the previous question, in our earlier discussions with the United States Administration we said that, as the United States is our closest ally, we would want to be helpful should it make a specific request on this matter.

Army (New Equipment)

Mr. Barry Jones: What plans he has to introduce new equipment for the Army. [148225]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We are investing in a number of new systems that will ensure that the Army's capability is maintained at the highest level. The Apache helicopter entered service last month, and plans for future equipment include new armoured engineering vehicles and, in the longer term, improvements to the range and accuracy of our artillery weapons, a fully integrated fighting system for the infantry and a new range of armoured fighting vehicles. We have also taken decisive action to rectify two long-standing equipment problems by commencing a modification programme for the SA80 rifle and by launching a new competition for the Bowman radio requirement.

Mr. Jones: Is the Ministry still committed to purchasing the new heavy lift aircraft, the A400M? I urge him to ensure that he purchases not 25 but 45 of that aircraft, and makes sure that the wings are made in my constituency, where 4,800 skilled workers stand ready to be of service to him. May I further tell him that, in the Airbus consortium, our German colleagues are lobbying like mad to get the contract to make the wings? As we have had steel redundancies in Wales, including at Shotton in my constituency, manufacturing would receive a big boost if he would say that 45 aircraft will be purchased and that the wings will be made in my constituency.

Dr. Moonie: I assure my right hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to the purchase of the A400M. Plans for its development are progressing well. I am confident that the wings will be built in his constituency and will preserve the jobs that will be underpinned as a consequence.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister accept that until we have robot wars, we need human beings to operate the equipment? Is not the British Army 8,000 men short? What would the Minister say to the Staffordshire Regiment, whose representatives said at a meeting in the House of Commons only a week and a half ago that, for the first time since the second world war, it is undermanned by more than 250?

Dr. Moonie: I am well aware of the deficiencies in numbers that we inherited from the previous


Government—deficiencies that, like them, we have done our best to remedy. The hon. Gentleman must recognise, however, that demographic changes in this country make it increasingly difficult to recruit into the armed forces. We are taking effective action to improve recruitment and retention through the package of support that we are giving to families, and through the improvements that we are making to accommodation. The picture in the next few years will be very much better than over the past few years.

Future Offshore Vehicles

Mr. Mike Hancock: When his Department will complete its evaluation of the tenders for the future offshore vehicles contract; and if he will make a statement. [148226]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Invitations to tender for the future offshore patrol vessel contract were issued on 12 December 2000. The closing date for submitting bids was 8 February 2001. If industry's responses confirm improved value for money over the current service, the intention is to be able to place a contract in April 2001.

Mr. Hancock: Is the Minister aware of the importance of the contract to the employees of Vosper Thornycroft in the south of Hampshire, who currently face redundancy because of a shortage of work? In view of the important industrial implications, will he give a commitment to the House that the Defence Procurement Agency will complete its evaluation of the bids as quickly as is practicable, and will countenance no further delay? Will he also assure the House that the agency will be vigilant about the predatory bids for the contract that might be on the horizon, and rule them out of order? That will safeguard the position in which we have more than one shipbuilder building warships for the British Government.

Dr. Moonie: I am well aware of the importance that shipbuilders in the hon. Gentleman's area attach to the contract. I assure him that there will be no delays in reaching a conclusion on the bids that we have received. We are also well aware of the importance of competition.

Mr. Syd Rapson: I declare an interest as a member of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, which has a presence in the industry. Given the size of future shipbuilding operations in this country and the extra capacity that is required, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to maintain the two asset bases, one on the Clyde and one on the south coast, because having two United Kingdom companies that are efficient in that sector increases our chances of building and exporting warships?

Dr. Moonie: As I have said, we recognise the importance of diversity of location and ownership in shipbuilding for our armed forces. That includes the north-east and the north-west, as well as the south coast and the Clyde. We will do everything we can to ensure that we get best value for money and continue to support British industry.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: What confidence can there be that the Ministry of Defence will handle the

competition fairly? The strategic defence review identified two LSLs as a requirement, but it was decided that four were needed instead, two of which were given, without competition, to the Yarrow yard. That has probably enabled Yarrow, which is owned by BAE Systems Marine Ltd., to launch a predatory bid for those craft. Is it not time the Ministry returned to the use of competition as the guiding principle, and stopped handing out contracts to giants such as BAE Systems, in the interests of industrial rather than defence policy?

Dr. Moonie: I must point out that the original requirement was for six of those ships, not four. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Moonie: When we are placing a large procurement order, such as the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, there is clearly a trade-off between where to place the shipbuilding orders and the time within which we want to bring the ships into service. Our armed forces are absolutely delighted with the speed with which we managed to place the orders.

Royal Navy (Pay and Conditions)

Mr. Tony McWalter: What steps he is taking to improve pay and conditions of Royal Navy personnel. [148228]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The terms and conditions of naval service personnel are subjected to regular review to ensure their currency and fairness. The rates of pay and associated allowances of naval service personnel are reviewed annually by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which bases its recommendations on broad comparability with similarly weighted civilian jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Friday, the review body's recommendations for the 2001 pay award have been accepted in full by the Government and will be implemented from 1 April. The settlement is good for all the armed forces and is fully deserved, given the excellent job that they do.

Mr. McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in the armed forces welcome the improvements that he describes? However, vessels such as HMS Ocean were not so much lean-manned ships as scandalously undermanned, as part of the previous Government's arrangements? Will he ensure that staffing levels on such ships are high enough to keep them clean, so that they can be a source of pride to the Royal Navy?

Mr. Spellar: I assure my hon. Friend that the Navy's leadership is ensuring that our ships are properly and adequately manned. It is also undertaking effective recruiting, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, and the Royal Air Force and the Navy are moving towards achieving the required staffing balance.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the most unfair aspect of pay and pensions is the so-called pensions trough, whereby some people who retired at a time of pay restraint are £1,000 or more a year


worse off than people who may have retired only a few days later? Does he also agree that if those pensions were part of a private scheme, the trustees would have tried to address the problem? Will he face up to the representations made to him by the Officers Pensions Society and others to deal with that injustice?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the issue is difficult and has been faced by Governments of both parties for many years. It affects not only the armed forces pension scheme, but a considerable number of public sector schemes as well. It is a little disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to imply that there may be a separation between the armed forces scheme and the schemes for the rest of the public sector. As I said, all Governments have faced that difficulty, and in 18 years, the previous Government did nothing about it.

Ms Claire Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that armed forces personnel serving abroad receive less pay than they do when they are based in barracks here? Will he give a commitment to consider that issue?

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is probably referring to overseas allowances for personnel in Germany and the Balkans. That is a difficult matter, which raises taxation issues. The previous Administration also faced those problems—but I am not trying to place the responsibility on them. Individuals who serve in Germany and the Balkans may not be better off in their overall service, because they will be affected by a different tax regime. However, we recognise the problems caused by separation; that is why we introduced enhanced separation allowances.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Minister realise that the shortfall of naval pilots in joint force Harrier is not just a question of money? Does he understand that although RAF Cottesmore is an agreeable location—it is a former bomber base in good hunting country—it is not exactly the same as a naval air station where there is salt in the air, and the traditions, atmosphere and ethos encourage Fleet Air Arm pilots, like other naval personnel, to stay and to feel at home?

Mr. Spellar: I have been to Yeovilton and I did not notice too much salt flying across from the waves on the beach. Like many other countries, we face considerable pressures in recruiting naval air personnel and RAF pilots, because of the expansion of the civil airline industry. I wish only that the industry paid for all its own training, instead of constantly poaching personnel from the air force. We are looking to improve and increase output from the training system, but that will take time. That is why we have, as the hon. Gentleman will know, introduced measures to encourage retention, so as to sustain our operational effectiveness. The Navy and the RAF are hopeful and optimistic that those will have a significant positive effect.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend will be aware that for some years I have been campaigning to have removed the arcane old-fashioned regulations that affect the pay of Navy, Army and RAF personnel. Those regulations prevent the operation of deduction of earnings orders that the Child Support Agency has imposed on

some personnel, and so help them to avoid their responsibilities. When will the Minister do something about that? The new CSA arrangements will do nothing to deal with the backlog of cases affected by those regulations, and that is a crying shame.

Mr. Spellar: I know that my hon. Friend has met the Under-Secretary of State to discuss the matter. My recollection from my days as Under-Secretary is that the percentage that can be deducted from service pay is greater than the CSA levels that are to be introduced. I admit that problems arise because of arrears, which are often due to CSA bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is considering the matter.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I wonder whether the Government have any conception of the consternation and chaos produced throughout the armed forces by their ill-conceived and mishandled pay proposals for 2000. What possible sense or justice is there in paying a cook more than a bomb disposal expert with the same rank and seniority? I spent Thursday with an all-party group on one of the Royal Navy's largest ships. The whole complement was in a state of cold fury about the proposals. Is it surprising that with such a ham-fisted Government, morale and retention in all the services are collapsing—contrary to the complacent impression given by Ministers earlier in response to my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)?

Mr. Spellar: Everyone recognises that changed pay systems always create some difficulties, especially in their early stages. Policies are designed to be more flexible so that they can be adapted to changing circumstances. Everyone will have the opportunity to increase his earnings within his rank, in recognition of experience and qualifications. The second major change is a more targeted approach, which will allow us to address accurately particular areas of need. Allowances will be focused more efficiently on recruitment and retention. It is a strategy for retaining the best alongside the strategy for change. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) indicates some dissent. That is slightly surprising, as that was said at the introduction of the policy in February 1997, in the foreword signed by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).

Royal Navy (Front-line Equipment)

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What progress he has made with enhancing front-line equipment for the Royal Navy. [148230]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We have under way the largest warship programme for many years. This includes the type 45 destroyer equipped with the principal anti-air missile system; new aircraft carriers with new carrier-borne aircraft and airborne early-warning aircraft; Astute class submarines; new amphibious support ships; and multi-role survey vessels. The Royal Navy will also be


supported with new roll on/roll off vessels and new auxiliary oilers. This is just part of a huge programme of modernisation that, I am happy to say, is progressing well.

Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the Government's plans to procure two new larger aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy will not be affected by the outcome of the general election?

Dr. Moonie: Given the performance of the Opposition, I do not think that that will be a problem.

Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister recall saying a few moments ago that the Government believed in competition within the warship-building industry? Does he not realise that when the Secretary of State announced fair and equal shares in the type 45 programme last year, that in itself persuaded Vosper Thornycroft to share its commercial and engineering techniques with the big players? As a result, it is subject to predatory pricing and is likely to be driven out of the marketplace, which would be a loss to warship building and to the country's economy? What does the Minister have to say about honouring the pledges made in the House to protect smaller players from predatory pricing?

Dr. Moonie: There has been no change to date in our policy, which is to conduct a procurement exercise involving both yards, under the direction of the prime contractor. That remains the policy.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend ensure that future large aircraft carriers will be capable of operating Eurofighter, as that will ensure that we have a seaworthy—or rather, sea-going—version of Eurofighter, which will benefit jobs in the north-west?

Dr. Moonie: The decision on the further development of Eurofighter has not yet been taken. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware that we are committed to supporting the early stages of development of the joint strike fighter, which promises to be a most exciting and effective aircraft.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will any royal naval fleet submarines be decommissioned earlier than planned?

Dr. Moonie: No.

Defence Expenditure

Mr. Alan W. Williams: How much total expenditure on defence was as a percentage of gross domestic product in the last financial year. [148231]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Over the last year defence spending has represented 2.4 per cent. of gross domestic product.

Mr. Williams: Will my hon. Friend confirm that defence expenditure, though rising as a percentage of gross domestic product, is much lower than it was in the

mid 1980s, thanks to the peace dividend? Will he also confirm that a higher proportion of that spending is now spent on peacekeeping than on offensive capability?

Mr. Spellar: These issues are not so easily divisible. The ability to undertake high-intensity war fighting also produces the forces that have been able to react rapidly throughout the world, very professionally, to bring peace and stability to many areas—to Kosovo, to Sierra Leone and elsewhere. That is all part of the overall capability of our armed forces.

NATO (European Security)

Mr. Tim Loughton: When he last met the NATO Secretary General to discuss European security. [148232]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I last discussed European security with Lord Robertson at the North Atlantic Council Defence Ministers meeting on 5 and 6 December 2000.

Mr. Loughton: Does the Secretary of State agree with the head of the European Union's new military staff that, in time, EU rapid reaction forces will compete with NATO?

Mr. Hoon: No, I do not. Indeed, as we have negotiated the way forward between the EU and NATO, it has been clear Government policy that there should no duplication whatever of complementary abilities. We want to make sure that the remaining details that still have to be negotiated are right, and we fully agree with the United States that it is important that there should be no duplication of the various available facilities.

Service Personnel

Mr. Russell Brown: If he will make a statement on the change in the total number of service personnel since 1979. [148233]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): On 1 April 1979, the trained strength of the armed forces was 284,200. On 1 December 2000, the trained strength of the armed forces was 189,318. The reduction in the size of the armed forces over the last 20 years reflects changes in the requirements of the international situation and defence policy. The roles of the armed forces have changed from those envisaged in the cold war to those defined in the strategic defence review. Our aim is to achieve a balance of resources between platforms, weapons and people, to generate and maintain modern, joint battle-winning forces.

Mr. Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bulk of the cuts in the number of service personnel occurred under the previous Administration? How many foreign policy-led strategic reviews of defence policy, as opposed to reviews led by the need for Tory cuts, have been carried out since 1979?

Mr. Spellar: I assure my hon. Friend that, as he rightly says, the strategic defence review was led by policy imperatives, followed by resource requirements. He is


right to identify the fact that under the previous Administration, any such reviews were Treasury led and cuts oriented. Not only were there cuts in the numbers in the armed forces, but targets were overshot. We inherited that situation. It was undesirable because of the extra pressure on our forces, and because it gave a clear impression to people outside that the forces were no longer recruiting. I pay tribute to the recruitment organisations of the three services, which have made a considerable effort to get across the message that we are in the business of recruitment, and are still hiring considerable numbers of high-quality young people.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Minister accept that, as the Adjutant-General said, at the present inflow rate of personnel to the Army, it will take 31 years to achieve the Government's targets? There is therefore no room for complacency. Does he also accept that putting women in the front line in the Army is not likely to enhance morale in the armed services? Furthermore, will he comment on the activities of two Army women who have invited contempt for the Army? Will he do something about that, so that such people do not treat the Army as a game? It is a fully professional service, and women should not treat it in that way.

Mr. Spellar: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the wrong newspapers. I am pleased to hear that he is contradicting his own leader on the issue of women in the front line.
Rather than leap in to this subject, Ministers are awaiting the professional and thorough study undertaken by the Army, which will report later this year. We will evaluate that and report to the House. We are certainly not complacent about recruitment numbers. As I just said, we inherited a serious situation: not only were numbers down, but the impression had been given that we were no longer recruiting. [Interruption.] Contrary to the impression given by the bawling of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), numbers in the Army are going up. That is a tremendous tribute to the training machine that gets recruits through to the Army, and the efforts of our recruiters, especially as employment levels have risen by 1 million, thanks to the excellent economic policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Traditionally, people believe that recruitment suffers when employment rises—but now the attraction of our armed forces ensures that recruitment, too is rising. That is good for the forces, and a good sign for our economy.

Mr. David Winnick: Should it not be entirely for women in the armed forces to decide whether they are capable and fit to do the job in the front line? If they are, they should be able to do it, and there should be no discrimination against them. Should that not be the Government's policy?

Mr. Spellar: Our policy is to await the outcome of the review being conducted by the Army, which will be conducted in depth, and extremely professional. We would, of course, be interested to know what the joined-up policy of the Opposition is.

Point of Order

Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not against the Standing Orders and procedures of the House that on a day allocated for Opposition time, the Government should make a non-essential statement, particularly when the contents of that statement have been trailed all weekend in the media?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but the statement is not against the procedures of the House. The Minister is entitled to make a statement before the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order relating to the statement; otherwise I will take it after the statement.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise the House whether you have any discretion as to whether to allow a statement to be made? The Minister should ask your permission to make a statement, and the request should be judged not least by whether the statement is genuinely urgent, particularly on a day that is supposed to be allocated to the Opposition as a Supply day. Do you accept that in order to protect the House, there must be an element of discretion? We cannot be ruled and dictated to by Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: I have stated that the Minister is entitled to come before the House and make a statement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As both Speaker and Deputy Speaker, do you recollect that almost every week since 1997, the Tory Opposition have demanded a statement from the Government on this, that and the other? I have never heard so much hypocrisy in my life.

Schools Green Paper

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot win.
With permission, I shall make a statement. I begin by thanking all those who assisted in drawing up the proposals, including my ministerial team. I put on record my appreciation of teachers and non-teaching staff across the country for the work that they are doing, day in, day out, to turn policy proposals into reality in the classroom and beyond.
Four years ago, we promised that we would improve school standards. Last week, the chief inspector of schools confirmed improvements in literacy and numeracy, which have transformed primary schools. Standards are rising fastest in schools where under-achievement was most pronounced, in education action zones and through the excellence in cities programmes. We have seen more than 650 schools successfully removed from special measures. We will deliver our class size pledge ahead of schedule.
We are laying the early foundations, with 120,000 more young children in free nursery places than four years ago. We are committed to universal free nursery education for all three and four-year-olds, and to providing child care places benefiting 1 million children by 2004. We have expanded the sure start programme, and I am pleased to announce that the number of early years excellence centres will be increased to 100.
Our task now is to build on those foundations, to sustain change in primary schools and to transform secondary education. We have made a good start, particularly through excellence in cities, the considerable expansion of specialist schools and our investment in buildings and repair. In partnership with teachers and parents, we need to move further and faster.
Today's Green Paper, "Schools: Building on Success", sets out three key challenges for the future. First, we need to improve standards still further. For primary schools, we are consulting on a new target for achievement at age 11 so that 85 per cent. will gain level 4 in English and maths by 2004 and 35 per cent. will reach level 5. We aim to achieve a step change in performance in early secondary years. We shall set demanding targets for achievement at age 14, building on success in primary schools. Attainment at that age is a key determinant of GCSE performance, and 93 per cent. of those who reach level 6 gain five or more good GCSE grades. That is why we are already taking action.
We have introduced new programmes of teaching with more challenging targets in 200 schools, as well as catch-up provision and tests for 12-year-olds who have fallen behind. From September, we shall extend that programme to all English secondary schools, backed by £82 million of investment in this year alone. We are concentrating renewed attention on secondary schools with low levels of success and, through new pupil learning credits, helping those schools that face the largest economic and social disadvantage.
The second challenge is a new focus on diversity and choice to ensure that the individual talent of pupils is fostered and that their weaknesses are addressed. Through a more diverse curriculum and improved support, we can


transform their life chances. The national curriculum remains a basic entitlement, but, in addition, we shall ensure that all children have access to sport and the arts and to teaching on citizenship and democracy. I can announce today our intention that, over time, every primary school child will have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument and to experience one of a range of sports. However, we need to do much more to offer real choice.
We shall accelerate pupil achievement with experimental programmes for youngsters, who will take tests at 13 rather than 14, and ensure that there is more early entry for GCSE. I can announce today the establishment of a new centre, which will spread best practice in addressing the needs of gifted and talented pupils. We shall offer a new vocational route, providing choices in work-based as well as full-time practical GCSEs that will lead to apprenticeships for those who would benefit.
The third task is to extend diversity among schools so that every secondary school develops a particular ethos and plays to its strengths and also contributes to the community and the wider education system. We shall double the current number of specialist schools with a new target date of 2003 for the first 1,000, leading to 1,500 schools within five years. Consistency is important. Therefore, I can announce today the creation of advanced specialist schools, which will extend their role to assisting in teacher training and school leadership.
We have already announced the first city academies in inner-city areas. Today, we are proposing new forms of partnership with the voluntary and private sectors to support schools. Beacon schools enable the best of our schools to share best practice with others. I can therefore tell the House that, as well as making 1,000 offers of beacon status by the autumn, we shall also expand the programme to some schools that show excellence in working with their communities.
The Government have been the first to support new voluntary-aided schools for different faiths. We believe that it is important that, where there is parental demand, we support such schools. We recognise that the cost to Church and other faith schools of funding 15 per cent. of capital investment has been considerable, especially with the improved funding from Government. I can today announce that, following discussions with Churches and other faith groups, we intend to reduce that contribution to 10 per cent.
To succeed in reforming standards in schools, we need to recruit and retain good teachers. There are 2,250 more people training to be teachers today than a year ago. That is a direct result of the action we took last year. This year's pay settlement is also an important step, and helps new recruits and experienced teachers in particular. There has been a 12 per cent. increase in applications for teacher training, and more than a twofold increase in inquiries. We need to consider further how we can persuade good graduates to consider teaching, and how we can help them to stay in the profession.
The Green Paper proposes that we consult universities about developing teacher modules in a wide range of undergraduate courses, so that young people get a taste and experience of what teaching has to offer, and some are able to complete the in-school, graduate teaching programme on

a fast track. Furthermore, in shortage subjects—maths, English, languages, science and technology—we will assist new teachers by paying off their student loans at one tenth of their debt in each year they remain in teaching in the state sector. During that period, they will not have to repay those loans. That is a substantial new incentive to graduates to come into and to stay in teaching.
The programme that I have announced sets a clear direction for schools over the next five years. It builds on the policies that work. It offers consistency and continuity with modernisation. Teachers will be supported by improved training, and by policies aimed at cutting bureaucracy and addressing teacher work load. That will be backed by increased autonomy for head teachers of successful schools, building on changes in inspection and funding and on the curriculum, and improved pay and conditions for staff. The programme will be underpinned by the substantial increase in investment that we have provided in the day-to-day running of our schools and in the fabric of the buildings.
Our policies are designed to develop the potential of and offer equality to every child, whatever his background and whichever school he attends. We have today moved beyond the old arguments to create a schools system appropriate to the 21st century. I commend the Green Paper to the House.

Mrs. Theresa May: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me prior sight of this statement, and prior knowledge of the content of the Green Paper from The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday People, The Independent on Sunday, the Daily Mail, various other newspapers, the BBC, ITN, Sky, Radio 4, and other broadcast media.
There can be no doubt about what has brought the right hon. Gentleman to the House to make this announcement—panic. The Government have failed to deliver on education, and the Secretary of State knows it. After four years, the Labour Government's education policy is failing, and has been put on special measures.
The Secretary of State knows that, under the Government, class sizes in secondary schools have risen, their targets on exclusions have undermined discipline in classrooms, as confirmed by Ofsted, and they have stifled the energy and enthusiasm of our teachers by burdening them with red tape and paperwork—a directive a day since the beginning of last year.
The Government have presided over a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention that has left schools up and down the country without sufficient staff, and has done serious harm to the education of tens of thousands of children. What is the Government's answer to those problems? This morning the Prime Minister pledged to increase the share of national income spent on education in the next Parliament—exactly the same pledge that he gave before the last Parliament, and the same pledge on which he has failed to deliver in this Parliament.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, over the current Parliament, the Government will have spent an average of 4.6 per cent. of gross domestic product a year on education, compared to the average of 5 per cent. spent by the previous Conservative Government? Will he confirm that this Government have thus failed to deliver their 1997 manifesto commitment to spend a greater proportion of national income on education than did the


last Conservative Government? The right hon. Gentleman has not delivered on that pledge; why should we believe him this time?
Now there are more pledges in the Green Paper published today. There is to be diversity in secondary education, businesses are to take over failing schools, head teachers are to be given greater management freedom from local education authorities. Obviously, we welcome the language and rhetoric of many of the proposals in the Green Paper—at least, those that have been cut and pasted from the Conservative party website—but why should we believe the Secretary of State's pledge on diversity, when he abolished grant-maintained schools? Why should we believe his pledge to bring in businesses to run schools, when the Government have failed to provide that in education action zones? Why should we believe his pledge on freedom for head teachers, when he continues to let local education authorities top-slice money from our schools?
We particularly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of a principle we have long advocated: that the private sector should be allowed to take over management of some schools. Will he confirm that he has abandoned his previous dogmatic stance, and that private-sector companies will now be able to make a profit running state schools?
Teachers are bogged down by bureaucracy under this Government. Given his words this afternoon, will the Secretary of State apologise to the teaching profession for the lack of trust that he has shown it over the last four years, for the increased work load he has imposed on it, and for the way in which he has driven tens of thousands of teachers out of the profession?
What is new in the Government's package today? It must be the decision this morning that they suddenly favour selection. All those people—some of whom may well be sitting on the Labour Benches now—who watched the Secretary of State's lips at the 1995 Labour party conference, when he said "No selection by examination or interview", will have been startled by today's announcement. On this issue, the Government are guilty of confusion and cowardice.
Specialist schools are able to select 10 per cent. of their pupils; but the Secretary of State tells Radio 4 that they are not selective. And what of the new national academies for gifted and talented children? Will the Secretary of State tell us how pupils will be selected to attend the national academies, if not by examination or interview or on the basis of aptitude?
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister's office, which says that our comprehensive schools today are bog standard? Labour's confusion over selection is obvious. They attack grammar schools, but have brought in selection in the inner cities for the brightest pupils, and will now bring in selection for those who wish to take vocational GCSEs. When will the Government stop their vendetta against grammar schools, and scrap the grammar school ballots?
The Secretary of State has talked today of diversity and choice. Instead, he offers bureaucracy and confusion. What is clear from the details of the statement is that the Government will still be imposing their will on schools. As with the Thunderbirds puppets, the central manipulator will still be obvious.
Will the Secretary of State now accept that the only way in which to provide for the freedoms of which he and the Prime Minister speak is to free our schools from the shackles of local education authorities, provide the whole of the funding for each school directly to the school on the basis of a national formula, and set schools free to decide what is right for their pupils, untrammelled by bureaucratic and politically correct interference from central or local government?
Our schools need to draw out and to develop the talents and abilities of every child and to enable each child to develop his full potential. Our aim is to provide the education that is right for every child, but, for that, we need an education system whose hallmarks are excellence, diversity and choice—a system where schools are free to set their own ethos, to maintain it through their admissions policy and to set and to exert discipline; where they receive the whole of their budget direct and are free to spend it in the interests of their pupils; and where teachers are trusted and free to get on with the job of teaching children and raising standards.
The Green Paper does nothing to provide the freedom that our teachers and schools are crying out for. This is not just a bog standard, but a failing Government: they are failing schools, children, teachers and parents. In the interests of our children's future, they should be removed from office as soon as possible.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the Lady Penelope of the Opposition for the warm welcome that she has given to the raising of standards and to the concentration on pupil improvement. I am also grateful for her many suggestions for improving standards in the most deprived parts of the country—I am terribly sorry that I appeared to miss all that last bit of her speech. Instead, we got a diatribe of dogma about taking money away from special needs, from school transport and from school improvement and simply distributing it through the standard spending assessment process. Let me answer one or two of the things that the hon. Lady did ask me.
We are interested in investing in improvement, not in profit. It was sad that the hon. Lady made no additional suggestions about teacher recruitment, which I have requested from her twice in the House in the past month. She made no suggestions for improving the schools that were left to flounder under the previous Government; nor did she welcome the measures that we are introducing via pupil learning credits. Through that process we will ensure that there is greater freedom for those schools that wish to exercise it, rather than imposing it on them. By that means we can also invest in raising the chances of every child, gifted, talented, or with special needs. Instead of commenting on those proposals, we heard a diatribe about structure, questions about profit and abuse of the work that has been going on to raise standards throughout the country.
The hon. Lady compares the position during the depths of the recession in the early 1990s with that of today. Let us compare what we inherited with the position today. Expenditure on education has increased from 4.7 per cent. of national income to 4.96 per cent. We have every intention of ensuring that that expenditure graph rises, as the Prime Minister spelt out this morning, so that, year on year on year, there will be increased funding for schools, which we have not seen for generations, and which will enable teachers to do their job properly.
Let me take on the central issue raised by the hon. Lady. The present Government have managed to turn around 650 schools that were on special measures and restore them to sound health. That achievement has been far more effective than anything achieved before. The good teaching, good schooling and better results achieved in those schools have been recognised by the past three reports of successive chief inspectors. That is the measure by which we determine our success. The measures that we use are not the criticisms raised by the hon. Lady, but whether the life chances of children are being improved by our policies.
I challenge the hon. Lady and her colleagues to say whether they would spend the extra £82 million this year, whether they would spend the increased amount on performance-related promotion and whether they would continue the standards fund investment, which is directly aiding those schools, through the excellence in cities programmes. That money does not, however, go directly to the schools and is therefore not covered by the so-called pledge—one of the many pledges that last about three weeks—that Conservative Members have made on school spending, not on education spending. If they will not say that they would spend that money on raising standards in our schools, the Opposition—we shall be meeting them at the general election—will be a bunch of hypocrites, preaching one thing while intending to practise another.
As for the hon. Lady's gibe at the start of her oration, I can say only that 1 am very pleased to be able to combine accountability to the public, whom we serve, with accountability to the House—so that everyone knows what we are proposing and is aware of what the Opposition are not proposing.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the fact that there is a future for education across the country. He is aware that, in mining areas, because of the previous Tory Government's pit closures, we are short of skills and skills training. How will the programme that he has announced today help us to meet the new economy's skills needs, particularly in mining areas?

Mr. Blunkett: The diversity that we are seeking at secondary level will not only build on the heritage and commitment to skills in those areas on which the United Kingdom relied economically and for jobs for 150 years, but redesign and regain the commitment to apprenticeship and vocational skills that has been lost in so many areas. Our combination of diversity, academic education and offering youngsters the ability to choose and choose again, so that they can develop themselves through lifelong learning—it is not a matter of "one chance and you're out"—will give children from the age of 14 the opportunity to sample different life opportunities; the ability to decide at that stage which route they wish to take; and the opportunity to be encouraged and enabled in new modern apprenticeships. That will make it possible for them to gain the types of skills on which their fathers and grandfathers relied.

Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats sincerely welcome the fact that the Government are putting education at the heart of the next

general election. We are also pleased that the Green Paper contains some interesting proposals. We welcome the teaching of sport and music in primary schools, and we certainly welcome more money for extra-curricular activities. We also welcome a review of the 14 to 16-years curriculum, although I ask the Secretary of State to extend that to the 14 to 19-years curriculum. Such a review is urgently needed.
Many of the Government's proposals, however, are muddled, ill thought out and lack reality. Margaret Thatcher was the Secretary of State who introduced the most comprehensive schools in Britain. The current Secretary of State will be remembered as the one who engineered and sounded the death knell of comprehensive education and the introduction of selection. If specialist schools are good enough for four out of 10 schools, why are they not good enough for all of them? Why is the Government's vision so narrow that six out of 10 schools have to comprise a second tier of schools in our system? If specialist schools have to select 10 per cent. of their pupils by aptitude or ability, why have 93 per cent. of existing specialist schools rejected that path? Why does the Secretary of State think that such selection will improve standards? I think that the whole House would like to hear that answer.
We welcome the Secretary of State's admission that there is a crisis not only in teacher recruitment but in teacher retention. However, the type of thinking that holds that money should be provided only for "shortage subjects", without even defining a shortage subject, is very muddled. Religious education is a national curriculum subject, but, in the past 15 years, the full quota of RE teachers—unlike the quota of biology teachers—has never been recruited. However, the debts of students who become biology teachers will be paid, whereas those of students who become RE teachers will not be paid. We therefore need to know how "shortage subject" will be defined and how the Secretary of State will apply the definition in giving those grants.
How will the Secretary of State tell teachers in a staff room—some of whom have had their debts paid off and others not—that we now have an equitable and fair teaching profession? Will he consider the Liberal Democrat proposal of a 100 per cent. training salary for teachers, so that everyone is treated fairly and is guaranteed a job for the first year?

Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome at the beginning of his remarks. I agree that the 14 to 19 age range is important, which is why the beginnings of programmes in the secondary school, pre-16 period will be carried forward post-16. That makes a lot of sense and we are working with further education colleges and others to achieve it.
The hon. Gentleman chides me about comprehensive education. It is important to spell out the fact that under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 specialist schools can choose, by aptitude, up to 10 per cent. of their pupils. Actually, the Act rules out any further selection by examination for all schools that do not already have it. The adjudicator has been taking appeals from parents in relation to those schools that did have partial selection. It is important that, in their coverage, the media understand what the law says and what is happening in schools.
Comprehensive schools, to me, are all-ability but not all the same. They are able to provide for the individual needs of pupils. That was the aspiration of Anthony


Crosland, and I pay tribute to Susan Crosland, who confirmed that on "The World at One" on Radio 4 today. She welcomed our proposals, which she said were in line with her husband's original intentions in putting forward a system that had diversity, that played to the strengths of pupils and the schools and that did not allow for simple sameness.
I spelled out the specialisms where there are the greatest shortages at the moment. They are the ones, plus English, that have already had the golden hellos. The hon. Gentleman asked what people in a staff room will think when they find that some teachers in shortage subjects have had a golden hello for taking up teaching. I will tell him: they will think what a relief it is that they now have teachers to fill vacancies, lift the work load, teach the children and pick up the specialisms that were in short supply. That is why we are doing it.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I welcome the sensible and non-dogmatic approach to delegating more autonomy to schools. In that respect, will my right hon. Friend say what steps are being taken to reduce the administrative and form-filling burden on teachers, started by the Conservative party?

Mr. Blunkett: Apart from completely revising the standards fund formula in terms of its allocation and monitoring, we have reduced the paperwork and administration by two thirds in secondary schools, and by 40 per cent. in primary schools last term. The latter figure was a result of our sending the schools a grammar guide, and I just wish that Opposition parties would follow through their logic. If we are to improve standards and teach phonics, spelling and decent grammar, we must do something about it besides eulogising. We are also putting in place a major reduction in data collection. We will reduce the amount that is asked of schools by other authorities, such as education authorities, Ofsted and the like. We will make sure that the monitoring panel that we have established in the Department does its job of telling us what is and what is not acceptable in schools.

Mr. Michael Fallon: If the majority of secondary schools specialise and a minority do not, will it not be time for the Secretary of State to give up the pretence that he is running a comprehensive system? Could he say whether pupils in the remaining non-specialist schools are still entitled to opportunity for all?

Mr. Blunkett: We have specialist schools and beacon schools, which, incidentally, also have resources to use in spreading best practice. The new community beacons that I announced today will be a part of that.
We have schools where there are variations and which develop, because of the expertise of particular teachers, an ability to deliver to special needs pupils. Teachers with a particular talent offer after-school and lunchtime programmes in languages such as Greek, and spread those programmes between schools.
A comprehensive system, in my book, does not have some good schools in some leafy suburbs and second-rate schools in other areas served by those who have always had the lousiest deal. It has decent schools for every child, so that those living in the leafy suburbs might, just for once, want to send their children across cities, across

boroughs and out of the immediate neighbourhood into schools that have improved so dramatically and have specialisms so attractive that no parent in their right mind would want to eschew them.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I warmly welcome the extra boost announced today for teacher recruitment and retention. However, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how he intends to help students already on BEd courses who, as he will be aware, feel that they have missed out on the very generous help being given for postgraduate one-year courses and who are looking for a bit of help from this?

Mr. Blunkett: If my hon. Friend looks at paragraph 12 of chapter 5, he will see listed a range of ways in which we might be able to help BEd and BA students who are taking undergraduate courses in education. The options on which I want to consult involve being able to pay students in their fourth year of a four-year course, reaching a point when they might be able to take up the induction year and therefore gain qualified teacher status. We are also looking at students taking up the equivalent of the graduate teacher programme in the fourth year, or taking sufficient modules during the four-year course to have reached the point in the fourth year at which they can take up QT status automatically—apologies to the Gallery, if anyone is still listening, for the jargon.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: They have all gone.

Mr. Blunkett: I am not surprised, considering the questions that we have heard from Conservative Members.
We shall combine the above measures with encouraging undergraduates on other courses to sample and enjoy teaching, including taking up paid work as teaching assistants, should the semester and the school term coincide sufficiently well.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the Secretary of State realise that much of what he has been doing recently has done nothing for the specialisation of schools in the countryside? I have a letter signed by the right hon. Gentleman, dated just over two weeks ago, in which he praises the additional £52 million for the SAS—[Interruption]—I mean the SSA for the counties. Devon, which is one of the largest counties in the country, gets less than £100,000 out of that £52 million, with £150,000 going to the whole of the west country. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the extra money for the neighbourhood renewal fund being brilliant for Devon. Plymouth—a Labour area—gets £1 million, but there is nothing for Devon and the countryside. This is the Labour party looking after its own, not the countryside.

Mr. Blunkett: I do not know about the SAS, but I know a bit about the SSA. We all agree that it needed revising a long time ago and we will do something about it.
I do not want to be ungenerous to the right hon. Gentleman, but in fact Plymouth is not under Labour control, regrettably. We lost it at the last local elections. [Interruption.] I heard the right hon. Gentleman say Plymouth; I am terribly sorry if I misheard him. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did say Plymouth."]
Let me put the record straight. This was additional money, on top of the revenue support grant, the standards fund, the building programmes that have been allocated and the nursery education provision for that county and others. The money was provided from Department for Education and Employment resources that we identified, based on the distribution and top-slicing of adult education money and the ability of authorities to reach and deliver their standards agenda.
I am terribly sorry that I could not do more than I did a fortnight ago, but I will continue to do my best to ensure that the schools in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency receive the special grant that they never had when his party were in office.

Gillian Merron: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement for its response to the fact that vocational and technical education has been downgraded for too long? As a result, engineering careers, for example, have been difficult to promote positively to young people. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that vocational GCSEs and work-related learning opportunities will become a central part of the education system? Along with closer links between schools and industry, that will ensure that places such as Lincoln receive the bright and talented people whom we need to work in engineering.

Mr. Blunkett: I certainly can. That is why the specialist school programme is being expanded to science, engineering and business and enterprise. I pay tribute to the contribution that business and commerce have made both in kind and in support for and direct links with schools. It was disgraceful that the shadow Secretary of State was so disparaging about the efforts made. What a funny twist that was, and what a changed world we live in. I assure my hon. Friend that the work will continue and that the 14-plus programme, helped by the change in the law that we brought about in 1998, will facilitate it.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Most of the Secretary of State's statement applies, of course, to England alone, but one area—the relief of repayment of student loans for teachers—has considerable scope for cross-border confusion. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position of those in teacher training colleges in Wales who then teach in England, and of those from teacher training colleges in England who go to teach in Wales? Has some understanding been reached with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Cardiff, Jane Davidson; and can the Secretary of State clarify the situation?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I am happy to do so. The cost will be met from central funds, not by the Welsh Assembly, and that will facilitate decision making for the young people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many parents in inner urban areas are strongly committed to the principle of universal comprehensive education? Many inner London boroughs have a serious problem because the remaining grammar schools and selective schools in outer London

diminish the number of able children who go to inner city schools. Will my right hon. Friend renew his commitment to comprehensive education? Instead of promoting the idea of 10 per cent. selectivity in specialist schools, will he reduce selectivity so that we end up with the universal comprehensive system that would be the best possible support for inner city schools?

Mr. Blunkett: I thought that I had already done that. The introduction to the Green Paper calls for
embracing without reservation the principles of inclusion and equality of opportunity on which comprehensives were founded".
I repeat that this afternoon. We have every intention of ensuring that where parents want change, they can use the adjudicator system to trigger it. In the case of selective schools using the old 11-plus, parents will have the opportunity to do that too. The main task that I set myself four years ago was to transform the schools, in which too many children found themselves, that were called comprehensive, but were comprehensive in name only.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In reflecting on his four years, the Secretary of State will have noted the answer given to the House a few weeks ago by the Minister for School Standards on allocations to local authorities. Can he tell us why Sheffield and Derby receive £2,500 for a primary pupil, but the county of Derbyshire receives only £2,300? Do the allocations have anything to do with who the Cabinet Ministers are?

Mr. Blunkett: If that did have anything to do with Cabinet Ministers, it would relate to the previous Government's Cabinet, not the present Government's. The system used for distribution of revenue support grant is the system that we inherited. We have done our best to ensure, through the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, that the system is put right. Direct funding to schools, the standards fund, the new funds for nursery provision and the funds allocated for building programmes make matters not worse, but better. Had we put those resources directly into the SSAs, Derbyshire's relative position would have been a great deal worse.

Mr. David Watts: What assessment has been made of the excellence in cities project and of its effect on increasing standards? Will he confirm that the education SSA system will be reviewed and changed next year?

Mr. Blunkett: On my hon. Friend's second question, which picks up on the one put by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), our Green Paper was issued last year and we have been holding consultations on it. By the summer, we shall be making decisions on a revised system of SSA distribution.
There has been a dramatic improvement in schools in excellence in cities areas; the youth cohort study showed improvements of 10 per cent. for youngsters from black and Asian households and of 7 per cent. for those from white, working-class households, as compared with the rest of the country.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to expand Church


schools. Bishop Ramsey Church of England school in my constituency is excellent. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in outer London, which he classifies as the leafy suburbs, there are considerable problems in the exercise of the real choice to which he pays lip service and makes obeisance? Will he do something to make certain that parents in my constituency really have the chance to get their child into the school of their choice? The fact is that not only the Church schools, but the foundation schools, are so good that local children are being flooded out by an inflow from across the borough boundaries.

Mr. Blunkett: I inherited a difficult problem: the inability of parents to get a place for their children at the schools closest to where they live. Sometimes that was because of selection; sometimes it was because of inherited admissions decisions. That is why we introduced a revised code, and set up independent tribunals so that parents could appeal to an external arbiter. That is why we expanded schools—especially in the infant and primary range—to ensure that more parents obtained their choice. Improving the quality of education is the only answer, if we are not to squeeze out those who do not know the ropes, who do not have a loud enough voice or who have not been able to use the admissions system to get their children into the school of their choice.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his proposed expansion of specialist schools, in whose number I hope that the Blackpool Collegiate high school—currently preparing a bid for sports college status—may be included. What resources does my right hon. Friend think he may be able to allocate to non-specialist secondary schools, so that subjects such as history, geography and citizenship, all of which need promotion, receive the right resources, so as to enable the expression of diversity of choice across the whole sector?

Mr. Blunkett: That will be done by ensuring that, first, should the Collegiate school obtain sports status, it can share it with neighbouring schools, to increase the excellence of the athletes and gymnasts of Blackpool who will welcome us to a triumphant party conference in a couple of years. Secondly, the programmes that we have set in train—the excellence clusters that are reaching out to other parts of the country—will ensure that the resources for learning support units, for mentors and for the programme for gifted and talented children will be extended in the way that I want. I hope that whoever is in my job in a few years will have been able to ensure that those measures and that investment—over and above the amount that schools would have received and thus vulnerable to the election of a Tory Government—have been put in place.

Sandra Gidley: I would be among the first to welcome the greater diversity offered by specialist schools—I welcome the increase in their number—but the reality is that, increasingly, parents can send their children only to the local school. Their offspring may be budding sports stars, but they might be stuck in an area where the specialist school is one for languages—excellent though that may be. Are we not introducing a postcode lottery for education?

Mr. Blunkett: No, we clearly are not, but I understand that the Liberal Democrats are committed to reversing the Greenwich judgment.

Mr. Willis: Hear, hear.

Mr. Blunkett: The Liberal Democrat spokesman agrees in his usual cheerful way. However, if the Greenwich judgment were overturned, people would be confined within their postcode areas and they would not have the choice to move across the boundaries.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Given that comprehensive schools have played a major part in raising standards of pupil achievement in the past 30 years, and although I recognise that we can do even better, may I urge my right hon. Friend to give particular encouragement to comprehensive schools serving the most deprived inner city communities to seek specialist status where they wish to do so?

Mr. Blunkett: The answer is an unequivocal yes. Under the excellence in cities initiative, we have deliberately supported and worked with schools to do that. My intention has always been that city academies and specialist schools should be targeted and resources provided precisely to lift the standing, the status and the achievement of the schools that need that particular boost; they can then share it with their communities.

Mr. Fabricant: I welcome those statements, which come straight from Conservative party policy—even though they were delayed because of the dreadful activities of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on Thursday—but what can the Secretary of State do to make people in Staffordshire believe that anything he says now is not a promise today and no jam at all tomorrow? A promise was made in 1997 that the Government would spend more money per capita as a proportion of GDP on education—they have not. They made promises in 1997 to raise the SSA in Staffordshire within a year of forming a Labour Government; we still languish second from bottom.

Mr. Blunkett: There has been a £300 increase in per pupil funding—£700 by the end of the spending review period—and the commitment to increase the amount spent on Staffordshire's schools has been met, ensuring that the buildings are repaired, that technology is installed and that teachers are better paid.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Secretary of State has referred to comprehensive schools that, in practice, are not comprehensive. I wonder what the statement offers to areas such as mine, where we have so-called comprehensive schools and an 11-plus exam? We have four grammar schools and five secondary schools. How will the Green Paper provide extra opportunities and diversity in places that still retain selection?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, in the Green Paper is a proposal, which I want to exemplify in the weeks ahead, to provide substantial additional resources for schools in such circumstances that are prepared to co-operate in sharing staff and facilities and in facilitating the integration of their pupils. In that way we can encourage the schools that have a traditional selection process at 11 to give all children the life chance that they are denied if they are excluded from excellence by an examination at one point in their lives.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order, of which I gave you notice this morning, concerns the removal from the Order Paper of Question 10, which I tabled and which was already printed in the Order Book, to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for answer on Tuesday 27 February 2001. You will be familiar with the letter written to me on 7 February from the Deputy Principal Clerk at the Table Office. I make it clear that in no way do I criticise the Clerks, who are doing their job, and in normal circumstances, there would be no whisper of an objection from me for ruling out a question that involved sub judice matters.
The letter from the Deputy Principal Clerk reads:
You have an oral Question in the Order Book for answer on Tuesday 27 February asking the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 31 January, on Lockerbie, if he will take steps to establish the existence of criminal evidence relating to persons other than Mr. Al-Megrahi.
You may already know that Mr. Al-Megrahi has lodged a Notice of Appeal and that accordingly the sub judice rule applies once more to the matters in the case. The Speaker has therefore directed that your oral question be removed from the Order Book.
The rule also, of course, applies to your Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday 13 February on relations between the UK and Libya. References in debate to the matters awaiting adjudication in the case would be sub judice. Although the bare facts that the trial court at Zeist has reached a conclusion and that an appeal has been lodged may be acknowledged, any further comment about the trial or appeal or matters likely to be raised in the appeal would be out of order.
The problem is that there is nothing ordinary about the Lockerbie case. In particular, the Foreign Secretary, the American Secretary of State and a host of others have made statements calling for Libya to face up to its alleged responsibilities without waiting for the appeal procedure and, indeed in some cases, after the appeal has been lodged. Acres of newspaper comment appeared, both before and after the decision to appeal was announced. Is not what is sauce for the Foreign's Secretary's goose sauce for a Back Bencher's gander? More pertinently, should the House of Commons—and the House of Commons alone—be restrained from asking questions in good time?
The issue is not simply one of the rights of an individual defendant but whether, on the back of a trial verdict that is vehemently disputed by many of those who

know most about the detail, this country should join in what could all too easily become military action in north Africa. The idea that the House of Commons should be prevented by rules—which are perfectly sensible in the overwhelming number of court cases in our domestic courts—from discussing grave international matters, where events could all too easily take over before the appeal procedure can be completed, is a matter, I submit, for your reflection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
As notice of appeal has been lodged by Mr. Al-Megrahi, the case is now sub judice. Under our rules the question to which the hon. Gentleman refers has properly been removed the Order Paper. However, he also has an Adjournment debate tomorrow in Westminster Hall. In that debate, Members will be able to discuss the wider issues of the United Kingdom's and the United States' relations with Libya arising from the Lockerbie case to which the hon. Gentleman has also referred.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my supplementary question in Defence questions, it became clear that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence did not understand the difference between a landing ship logistic and a roll-on/roll-off ferry. I attempted to correct him from a sedentary position, but you, Mr. Speaker, quite properly rebuked me. If the Minister's answer has misdirected himself and the House, is there anything else besides the Order Paper that I can use to get him back to the House to correct the record?

Mr. Speaker: There is one thing for sure: the hon. Gentleman cannot rerun Question Time.

Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware from reports at the weekend that Sir Richard Branson's People's Lottery is seeking compensation of £8 million from the National Lottery Commission. Any compensation would come from the funds that are much needed by organisations throughout the country, and many people have expressed their alarm at that. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any communication from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about a statement on this issue?

Mr. Speaker: I have received no such communication.

Opposition Day

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Prison Conditions

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the comments of the Director General of the Prison Service, in which he criticised intolerable conditions and referred to a number of prisons as 'hell holes', and the Reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons which described appalling conditions at certain prisons; and calls on the Government to take urgent action to improve conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons, in order to enable them better to fulfil their role of protecting the public.
I rather regret that the Government's gross discourtesy in having a statement on an Opposition day has meant that we have much less time for debate than this very important subject requires. When it happened on my previous Opposition day, I accepted it because it was a genuine emergency and the Government thought it necessary to make a statement on the steel industry. However, there was nothing remotely urgent about today's statement.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The Conservatives used to do that.

Miss Widdecombe: Unless there was a sensitive time factor, we were careful not to have Government statements on Opposition days.
Let me start by quoting the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary. He told the Labour party conference that it was the Government's responsibility
to confront the disgrace of a prison system in Britain that is inhumane, old fashioned and ineffective.
He went on to say that we should drastically reform the system
as a service that is publicly accountable, not as the new Tory plaything of privatisation for those out to make a profit.

That was his understanding of the priorities of the Government and the Prison Service in 1992.
In 1997, the Home Secretary made a point of saying at the beginning of his term of office that he would take personal responsibility for the Prison Service and did not intend to shelter behind civil servants. He will remember that I welcomed that as a step forward and looked forward to seeing how he would discharge that responsibility. Today, I shall examine the Home Secretary's stewardship of the Prison Service.
I shall quote some shocking words:
I am not prepared to continue to apologise for failing prison after failing prison.
I have had enough of trying to explain the very immorality of our treatment of some prisoners and the degradation of some establishments.
Those words were uttered by the Director General of the Prison Service and are an indictment of the Government's record on the prison system.
I shall not pretend that prisons have always been exemplary under Conservative Governments and always despicable under Labour Governments. Until the publication of the Woolf report, Her Majesty's prisons were pretty bad, no matter which party was in power. That fact was acknowledged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffen (Mr. Clarke) when he established the Prison Service agency. From then on, we made steady and, at times, startling progress, but since 1997 the Government have not had that commitment and, consequently, the Prison Service has either stalled or—worse—fallen back, with bad results for prisoners and public. Let me make it clear at the outset that I do not criticise the many dedicated men and women who work for the Prison Service; I criticise the Government.
Prisons protect the public in two ways: by keeping the prisoner out of circulation for the duration of his sentence and by making it less likely that he will reoffend when he leaves. The huge progress of an 80 per cent. reduction in escapes in our final years in government has been maintained, but the progress on the second front of providing purposeful activity has not.

Mr. David Winnick: Although I shall not be voting for the motion, I believe that the subject should be debated. Indeed, the Select Committee on Home Affairs is meeting at 5 o'clock. Does the right hon. Lady accept that, irrespective of which party is in office, the situation will become extremely difficult if more and more people continue to go to prison who are not an immediate danger to the community? Instead of increasing the number of people in prison, is there not a case for considering the alternatives? There is, however, no doubt that some people must serve prison sentences.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I know that he takes a genuine and close interest in these matters. There is no inherent tension in having increasing numbers of people going to prison and also making the regimes decent and constructive. Rather than simply making that assertion, I can illustrate it with the fact that our best progress in making conditions more decent and increasing purposeful activity by hundreds of thousands of hours was achieved against a background of a 25 per cent. rise in the prison population in just a few years.
I do not believe that the courts send people to prison willy-nilly. Prison is nearly always a last resort when other options have failed, unless the first offence is horrendously serious. If the courts believe that people need to be in prison, it is the Government's duty to provide the necessary places in decent, constructive circumstances.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Lady think that there are significant numbers of people who should be in prison but are not? Does she have any estimate of that figure? Does she believe that there are significant numbers of people in prison who should not be, and what is her estimate of that number? What does she think is the right policy for the next five years, whether or not she is in government during that time?

Miss Widdecombe: I think that there are people who should be in prison who currently are not. I refer to those


on the Home Secretary's home detention curfew scheme, who should complete what used to be a normal part of their prison sentence. We have proposed "three strikes and you're out" for people who deal soft drugs to children. They should be in prison. We have proposed tougher penalties for those who commit sexual offences against children. They, too, should be in prison.
As for those people who are in prison but should not be, the only significant number is those who have severe mental problems. In my time as prisons Minister, I was concerned that people who should be treated by the NHS are instead left in a prison system that cannot cope with them. We might tackle that problem a bit better—although we would probably not solve it completely—if the NHS was responsible for delivering prison health rather than there being a completely separate service, which means that there is not a seamless continuum.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to play a numbers game, and I cannot do so. I have never subscribed to the view that there is an ideal prison population—a number above which we should not go. I can only repeat that where the courts decide that prison is appropriate, it is the Government's duty to supply the places, even if that means building more prisons.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady was prisons Minister for several years. She referred to people with mental illness who are in prison. Did she set up a study to evaluate the number involved, and does she recall what that number was?

Miss Widdecombe: I was given a series of numbers by the prison health service, which varied from those who should not be in prison at all to those who would be helped if they received adequate health services while in prison. I shall not indulge in faulty recollection; Ministers have recently got into trouble because of faulty recollection. We conducted studies on those numbers. The hon. Gentleman might remember that we introduced a hybrid order, which enabled judges to determine that there should be a mixed penalty to be served partly in prison and partly in hospital. Before the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I made any assessment of the success of that, the answer is no because there was not time to do so before there was a regrettable change of Government.
I was saying that in the years following the Woolf report, prisons were made decent but austere. For example, the practice of prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for two was ended in 1994. Slopping out was ended in 1995. It is now back in three prisons. Assaults on prisoners and staff fell. The percentage of prisoners sharing two to a cell for one dropped, and prisoners engaged in hundreds of hours more of purposeful activity. They spent more time out of cells, were subject to random drugs tests, undertook national vocational qualifications and were given a new and effective system of incentives and privileges.
Four years into the Government's term of office, report after report has condemned the conditions in our prisons. However, the Government have failed to give the service any priority, even to the extent of the Minister with responsibility for prisons being unable to give me basic information about performance against standard indicators in the House.
The Director General of the Prison Service's comments in his speech last week exposes the Government's attitude to our prison system. He stated:
Year after year, governor after governor, inspection after inspection, prisons like these have been exposed. Year after year the exposure has led to a flurry of hand wringing, sometimes a change of governor, a dash of capital investment, but no real or sustained improvement.
In June, the chief inspector of prisons apparently found conditions in Brixton prison to be worse than when he made his previous report in 1996. He found conditions to be
totally unacceptable in any jail.
He found that there were no workshops and no educational facilities worthy of the name. Who has presided over the system for four of the five years that have elapsed since 1996? The answer is the Home Secretary.
At Birmingham prison, it has been reported that half of all education classes are unfilled. The chief inspector apparently found that conditions were significantly worse than those set out in previous critical reports in 1995 and 1998. That is an indictment of the malaise that has developed in the prison system under the Government. They could blame the Conservative Government for 1995, but not for 1998, and certainly not for 2001.
How can we expect our prisons to fulfil their role of protecting the public and allowing criminals to make a new start in life if inmates are left to rot in idleness in such conditions? The chief inspector further stated that Brixton prison is not failing but is being failed. It is being failed, and failed by the Government. As the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, pointed out in his Prison Reform Trust lecture last month, in the past financial year the Prison Service's key performance indicators were met in less than half of all cases. That is hardly an impressive record. The Conservative Government's track record was that the agency consistently met either all or nearly all of its indicators.
In his latest annual report, the chief inspector of prisons commented that 1998–99 was a very bad year for the Prison Service, marked by extreme examples of unacceptable practice in prisons. Let us consider the facts. Under the Government, the number of assaults on prisoners has increased from 2,747 in the Conservative Government's last year to 3,456 in the year 1999–2000. The number of assaults on staff also increased by 471. Before the excuse is made that there are more prisoners, it is a percentage increase of 4.8 per cent. in the Conservative Government's final year to 5.3 per cent. in respect of prisoners; there is a smaller increase in respect of staff.
One of the saddest indicators of the failing prison system—of bullying, hopelessness and depression—is the number of suicides. In the last year, the number was 91, compared with 70 in 1997. Under this Government, the period of time that prisoners spend out of their cells on weekdays fell from an average of 11 hours in 1997 to just over 10 now. The number of hours that prisoners spend in purposeful activity fell to 22.8 hours; under the previous Government, it had increased to more than 26 hours. As the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) admitted last week, the hours of purposeful activity are now back to


those of 1992—before we began to implement the Woolf report—which means that all the progress of our last five years has been vitiated.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I visited Usk prison in my constituency only three weeks ago. May I assure the right hon. Lady that the description that she has just given is unlike the experience in that prison, where the amount of purposeful activity—NVQs, sex offender treatment programmes, training and education—has increased markedly in the past few years?

Miss Widdecombe: The picture that I am painting is not, as the hon. Gentleman said, my picture: it is being painted by the Home Secretary's own report and statistics. If they are wrong, Ministers are misleading the House. I do not think that that is likely; the report and statistics are right, and the hon. Gentleman must accept that. If purposeful activity takes up an average of 22.8 hours, it stands to reason that in some prisons—perhaps including Usk—it will take up more time, but in others it will take up less.
We must also consider the fact that that indicator includes all the open prisons, where a full day's work is normal for all prisoners. In many prisons, therefore, there are only a few hours of purposeful activity a week. I am happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman was impressed by what he saw when he visited his own prison. I could name other prisons, and I shall, where I have been impressed by what I have seen. I am afraid, however, that there are many more—regrettably, most prisons—which do not reach those standards.
How can prisons be expected to reform criminals if time is squandered in idleness, which amounts to thousands of lost opportunities to do something to make our prisoners useful members of our society? The Government claim that they have exceeded their target for the number of prisoners sharing a cell designed for one. Their target was 18 per cent., but the number sharing a cell is 17.2 per cent. However, that is a percentage increase on the 15.5 per cent. that we left in 1996–97. There could not be a clearer demonstration of sliding back into bad ways. The figures for the last financial year show that the situation was even worse than the year before. If targets are lowered, and if Ministers who inherited a 15.5 per cent. rate of two prisoners sharing a cell for one set a target of 18 per cent., inevitably standards will slip, which has happened in this and other measurements of our prisons performance.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am interested in the right hon. Lady's speech so far. Will she say what she would do about all those things and give a straight answer to a simple question? Will she commit to match, at the very least, the Government's spending plans for prisons?

Miss Widdecombe: Oh dear; I have a feeling that a Tory gain is in the offing. Our proposals on policy have already been made clear, and I shall make them clear again a little later—[Interruption.] When I do so, I shall address the issue of spending. If the hon. Gentleman contains himself, he will hear what I have to say. The Home Secretary cannot plead pressure of numbers, for we reduced the percentage of two prisoners sharing a cell for one during a time of record rises in the prison population.
In his highly condemnatory report on Feltham young offenders institution, the chief inspector reported that Feltham was without clear strategic direction and that conditions were unacceptable, yet two years later the Government have done nothing to solve the crisis. In August 2000, the assistant governor at Feltham resigned, claiming that the prison still operated in "Dickensian conditions".
In his report into conditions at Portland young offenders institution, the chief inspector stated:
If an organisation such as the prison service does not have a proactive line management structure that is required to monitor and correct the quality of the treatment and conditions of prisoners, it will fail in its duty toward both prisoners and the public.
Has the Home Secretary done anything about that?
Surely it is conditions at young offender institutions that should worry us the most. It is essential that young offenders, above all, should be able to use their period of incarceration to rebuild their lives as useful members of the community, but instead there is an increasing culture of violence, which is leading to our young offender institutions becoming human dustbins, which young people leave dehumanised and sucked into a culture of ever more violence. The number of violent offences per 100 in those institutions has increased from 78 in 1997 to 90 in the last full financial year.
This Government are without a strategy for prisons; they are a Government who have allowed drift, decline and stagnation to infect the culture of our prison system. Not that there has been any shortage of ideology. In 1996, the Secretary of State said:
I regard privatisation of the prison service as morally repugnant.
What is morally repugnant is the appalling situation that the Government have allowed to develop in so many of our prisons. It was our vision that led to significant improvements, which have now been lost by the Government.
Of course, not all reports have been bad. The chief inspector's report on Blantyre House concluded by praising the consistent, innovative and courageous approach of the governor and staff. So what happens? Blantyre House is raided provocatively and excessively, the governor is removed, and Ministers defend their actions.
The inspection of the private prison, Blakenhurst, concluded:
The regime offered was good with excellent vocational training facilities, good work and education opportunities.
The inspection report into Buckley concluded:
From this inspection we were able to say that Buckley Hall is a thoroughly good prison.
The report continued:
The atmosphere was relaxed, yet controlled and relationships between staff and prisoners varied from good to excellent.
That is in contrast to the "hell holes" of many of our urban prisons described by the director general. What happens? Blakenhurst and Buckley Hall are renationalised—given back to the public sector, which cannot even run its own prisons properly, under an uncaring Government. Of course, the public sector pays no penalty if it fails. There is no built-in financial incentive to succeed.
I would be the last to lay all the failings of any prison directly at the feet of a Home Secretary, but too many of the problems in our prison system have been created by the Government. The lack of a strategic vision is failing


both prisoners and the public. The Home Secretary attacked privatisation as immoral—not just bad or misguided, but immoral—yet he is now offering it as a solution to the immoral conditions at Brixton. At the same time that privatisation is seen as the answer to the problems at Brixton, Blakenhurst and Buckley Hall are being brought back into the public sector.
One wonders whether the right hon. Gentleman has done yet another U-turn. Having been converted in a matter of weeks from a moral repulsion at the mere thought of private prisons to supporting them and providing more of them, he is once again—and in the teeth of all the evidence of the reports submitted to him—going back to the old Labour view that anything private is bad and anything public is good. Alternatively, has he done some deal with the Prison Officers Association, to which he promised before the last election that he would abandon privatisation?
It is precisely this confusion—abandon privatisation there, implement it here—and lack of direction at the heart of our prison system that has led to decline and stagnation under this Government. What our Prison Service needs is a sense of direction. It needs a Government who have a vision for it and its future and who are prepared to tackle the disgraceful conditions in which so many prisoners spend their sentences.
Last year, the number of hours that prisoners spent in workshops declined, which is another way of saying that the number of hours that they spent in idleness increased. We need a prison system that works not only by protecting the public by taking criminals off our streets, but by allowing those who have been caught up in criminality the opportunity to rejoin society as useful citizens—yet the Home Secretary is squandering the opportunity to create a prison system that will work on both those counts.
Our proposals for self-financing prison workshops would create an opportunity for the Prison Service to start to take significant steps towards becoming a service that truly fulfils the three tasks of protecting the public, punishing criminals and providing a chance for those who have committed crime to build a new life on release.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Making sacks.

Miss Widdecombe: The last thing that I want is for prisoners to do what they do at the moment: churn out more than 2 million pairs of socks every year—not for some sensible purpose such as sale to Marks and Spencer, but for consumption by a prison population who have never exceeded 64,000. So whether it is sacks or socks, I am not interested in purposeless activity. [Interruption.] If I may continue, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) may hear the answer to his question.
We will work towards a full working day in all prisons. The work that prisoners would undertake, if it came from real employers who really wanted it to be done, would allow a wage, rather than pocket money, to be paid to prisoners. Deductions could be made to cover savings, so that the prisoner could not be left with the plea that he had a choice between criminality and the dole; reparations to victims, so that he would understand that there are

consequences to actions; the upkeep of his own family, which falls almost entirely on the taxpayer; and, indeed, his own upkeep, so that he would learn the habits not only of regular and demanding work, but of an orderly and responsible distribution of the proceeds of work.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): rose—

Mr. Eric Martlew: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way first to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and I am following her remarks with some care. She said that such industries would be self-financing and would cover all prisoners, who number about 64,000 at any one time. Will she publish the calculations that lay behind that conclusion so as better to inform the debate and say what kind of product would be manufactured?

Miss Widdecombe: Product does not always have to be manufactured. If the Home Secretary has taken any interest at all in the work that already goes on in our prisons, he will be aware that a wide range of products such as printing—in suitable prisons, of course—and other services are supplied. If he considers the example of Blakenhurst, he will acknowledge that a lot of contracted work is taken in, which does not compete with local labour. Indeed, it forms the basis of much of the praise that has been lavished on that institution.
It is not as though I have to say to the Home Secretary, "This cannot be done." Other countries have prison workshops that undertake real work that produces real wages, so if he is seriously saying that that ideal cannot be realised, I do not agree. I am well aware that such issues often get distorted, so I remind him of what I said by quoting back my own words: we will work towards a full working day in all prisons. I did not say that, in the first five minutes of taking over his job, which I am greatly looking forward to doing, I would produce 64,000 places for work. However, I could work towards achieving that, which is what I shall do.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Once more.

Mr. Straw: I do not remember suggesting that such a thing would happen in the first five minutes, nor could it, under any Government. I am interested in the calculations that make the right hon. Lady think that it would be possible—after five years, for example—to make all those industries, which would involve 65,000 prisoners, entirely self-financing. I am asking her whether she will make those calculations public.

Miss Widdecombe: First, Prison Service industries, which supply products for the Prison Service, will obviously not be self-financing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, because those goods are bought only by the public sector. As prisons Minister, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), knows that they employ only a small minority of prisoners, whereas I want all prisoners


to have the opportunity to work. Our solution will be to have prison workshops that are run on the same basis as any other small business.
The word "calculations" has been used as though this proposal will establish a uniform business, uniformly applied in all prisons. I am appalled by the attitude of Labour Members who are not interested in this proposal: they despise it and do not want to do it. They have reduced the hours of purposeful activity in our prisons, but all they can do is sit there and say, "There ain't no solution", and they are not bothered about finding one. We have the solution, we will impose it, and it will be welcomed by the public and the Prison Service alike. The Government should be ashamed of the fact that there has been four years of wasted opportunity. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary seems to find that hilarious.

Mr. Martlew: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall make some progress.
The law already allows—

Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it right for the right hon. Lady to say that she will allow me to intervene after she has taken an intervention from the Home Secretary, and then to refuse to give way to me, although she had agreed to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): To whom Members of the House give way is entirely a matter for them.

Miss Widdecombe: Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that the quality of interventions has not been so wonderful that I would encourage them, but just to be kind I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I have listened carefully to her remarks, and I shall briefly recap. Prisoners will have to pay for their keep, pay compensation to their victims and pay for the upkeep of their families. What incentive will they have to work, or will the right hon. Lady make it compulsory and turn prisoners into slaves?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I will nuke it compulsory. If a prisoner refused to work, he would be put on the basic regime and have no chance of being under the enhanced regime. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his Front-Bench team are looking horribly embarrassed. He misunderstands the nature of prison work by his reference to "slaves". At the moment, prisoners work 22 hours a week for about £9.50, which could be called slavery. I propose that they should have the chance to earn a proper wage. When a Bill was introduced—it was in our time and with Government support—to allow deductions to be made, Labour Front-Benchers supported the proposal.

Mr. Straw: We know that.

Miss Widdecombe: I know that the right hon. Gentlemen knows that, but his hon. Friend does not, so I am just telling him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Well, okay.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady's proposition is very interesting. We are all interested in the detail. We presume that she has not launched into a tirade to make an irresponsible statement. Will she give us the figures? She must have worked them out. A paper giving the calculations must have been circulated among the Conservative shadow Home Office team setting out the basis on which she can draw these assumptions. We are genuinely interested. Can we see the data?

Miss Widdecombe: I visited all the prisons in my time as the responsible Minister. If the hon. Gentleman were to do so, he would find non-uniformity in the lamentably few prisons that have such enterprises. That non-uniformity makes it impossible to say that we will have that business in every prison and how much it will cost. That is nonsense. It would be important to do that if we were proposing that this scheme should be funded by the taxpayer, but we have already said that it will be self-financing. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Labour Members have never run a business, so they have no idea how to make it self-financing. When one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents tells him "I want to set up a business that will be self-financing", he will ask "How?" It is such a startling proposition that the hon. Gentleman's mind cannot encompass it. The sooner we take the prison system out of the hands of Labour Members, who apparently do not even realise how anything can possibly be self-financing, the better.
We will begin to restart the process of reform, which we did, after all, start and which has been squandered by this Government. We will try to rebuild a real service from the decline, confusion and stagnation that this Government have introduced into our prison system. This Government have presided over an increase in overcrowding, the return of slopping out in three prisons, a rise in the assault rate, an increase in the number of suicides and a fall in purposeful activity. They have let things become so bad that their own director general describes conditions as immoral, and they do not even apologise for that. Yet this is the Government, and this is the Home Secretary, who in opposition had the gall to condemn our record when we were progressing in leaps and bounds.
Winston Churchill said that the test of a civilised society was how it treated its prisoners. The Government have failed that test, failed the people whom they should be protecting, and failed the offenders whom they should be reforming. They have also massively failed the thousands of decent, hard-working staff who struggle to do their jobs in impossible circumstances. They should give way to a party that cares enough to do something about the situation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
supports the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make prisons work better to reduce reoffending and thus cut crime; welcomes the improved investment in the Service, and the improved performance


of the Service in terms of security, literacy and numeracy, offender behaviour programmes, the reduction in drug taking and in under-18 regimes; offers its gratitude to staff and the many volunteers attached to prisons; but notes the significant and unacceptable variation in the effectiveness of different Prison Service establishments as highlighted by the Director General and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, and endorses the measures being put in place to secure higher and more consistent standards across establishments.".
I was grateful to the Opposition when I saw that they had applied for a debate on prisons, because it is important for the subject to be debated in the House from time to time. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was entirely right to say that our manifesto stated that I would take proper responsibility for the Prison Service, and that is exactly what I have sought to do ever since. I have sought to take responsibility for the good things that have happened in the service, for the not so good things, and for the bad things. I am responsible for the service, not least to the House.
The right hon. Lady's speech was a parody of the director general's speech at the Prison Service conference, and also a parody of the record of both this Government and the Government of whom she was a member. She said that she would not go in for faulty recollection, and then suggested that during her time as prisons Minister—from five or six years after the publication of the Woolf report until May 1997—the service had progressed in "leaps and bounds".
One of the striking things about the right hon. Lady is her absence of memory. Let me jolt her memory with a few quotations:
We created a false distinction between policy and operations which has reverberated around the whole of Whitehall, not just the Home Office;
We severely damaged relations with the private sector;
We have endured swingeing headlines in the press";
and:
We left the Prison Service without a confirmed leader for five months, and we shattered its morale … And … did we eliminate disasters from the Prison Service? No … approximately 541 prisoners were released before the end of their sentences. They did not even have to break out."—[Official Report, 19 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 401.]
That was the right hon. Lady in her first speech in opposition summing up the previous five years, during which she had been the prisons Minister. Her conclusion about the Prison Service that she had been running was, "We shattered its morale."

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman is being very slightly tendentious—I suppose I am not allowed to say "tendentious" in the House, but I think that he is. If he looked at the whole of that speech, he would find that I paid tribute to the immense progress that the service had made, that I was talking about one very confined period, not the five years that followed the Woolf report, and that I specifically said that, in those five years, we had made massive progress. I said that that was due both to the Government and to the Prison Service. The right hon. Gentleman should read the whole speech.

Mr. Straw: The speech is rather too long to read it now, but I always do the right hon. Lady the courtesy of reading her speeches. It so happens that there were indeed

other parts where she talked about the achievements of the Prison Service. I also remember that she criticised us, probably fairly, for trying to take away from the achievements of the Prison Service during that period. The simple fact is that she went through one or two things in her speech on 19 May 1997, but she reserved her strongest prose, her greatest condemnation, not just for her right hon. and learned Friend, as it were, the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), her boss and the previous Home Secretary, but for the previous Government as a whole. She did not say, "We shattered its morale" with any qualification.
There had been some achievements following the publication of the Woolf report. I am perfectly prepared—indeed, it was in my text before I knew what the right hon. Lady was going to say—to put those achievements on the record, but the other truth is that, thanks to the way in which she and the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to run the Prison Service, morale was indeed shattered, the system was not working effectively and there was no proper ministerial responsibility or accountability for the service.
Moreover, the right hon. Lady had agreed to a budget for 1997–98 and for 1998–99 that was so tight it would have led to catastrophe, had I not been able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer very shortly after coming into office, following an agreement in the manifesto that we would audit the resources available to the Prison Service before sticking to the previous Government' s spending limit, that there should first be a £60 million uplift in 1997–98 and a further uplift, covering two years, of £112 million.
The point that the director general made in his speech last week at the Prison Service conference is one that I have also made on a number of occasions and that, in her wiser moments—I am sorry that there were not any in the speech that she has just made—the right hon. Lady recognises: with the Prison Service, as with any other public sector institution and large private sector institution, we can put the same resources into establishments, establishments can deal with the same people and can have the same number of managers, yet they produce very variable performance.
In the middle 1980s the previous Administration drew stark attention to that fact in relation to the performance of schools. Something that I did support in opposition was the introduction of a national curriculum and of testing because it was important to ensure that similar schools performed in a similar way. Indeed, when I was at the Inner London education authority, we did some research to draw that out. That should not be a matter of argument between the parties. The issue of raising the standards of all prisons in similar categories, first to the level of the average and then to the level of the best, is a central part of the strategy of the director general, which the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and I have endorsed.
The right hon. Lady mentioned various adverse reports by the chief inspector. I have a few comments on that, the first of which is that she forgot entirely to mention that, when I became Secretary of State, I found on my desk a pile of about a dozen reports from the chief inspector—some of which, as I recall, were well over one year old. Although I do not necessarily say that she was responsible for that, it is interesting that she said nothing at all about


it today. The reports had simply been shelved. They apparently conveyed embarrassing information and were shelved.

Miss Widdecombe: What has the right hon. Gentleman been doing for four years?

Mr. Straw: Almost my very first action on taking office was to say that a protocol would have to be agreed and announced between the chief inspector of prisons, the director general and me. It provided that, in very short order, report drafts would be submitted for factual accuracy to be checked; would go back to the chief inspector; and—unless there was a major argument on factual accuracy, not on the chief inspector's comments—would be published. If there was disagreement on factual accuracy, the draft would come back to me. I am pleased to say that that protocol has been very successful and we have ensured that reports are published.

Miss Widdecombe: What have the Government done?

Mr. Straw: Our first action has been to ensure that reports are published as quickly as possible. If reports were treated now as they were when the right hon. Lady was the prisons Minister, the public and Parliament would never know about bad prison conditions. The first thing that we have done is to shine light on those establishments, which the previous Administration refused to do.
Secondly, where there have been adverse reports, we have sought rapid improvements. As the director general said in his speech last week, there have been improvements at Wormwood Scrubs, Wandsworth, Brixton, Portland and Leeds. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the director general and I were the first to say that, yes, change was too long a-coming at Brixton. Consequently, we said that that establishment would have to be market-tested. However, we have done more than that.
Although I have publicly expressed my gratitude to the chief inspector for his reports on individual prisons and for his thematic reports, it became clear to us that we needed more than just those reports to ensure a continuous stream of information on the relative performance of establishments. That is being dealt with by implementation of the recommendations of Lord Laming's inquiry, which were published in July 2000. He has established that by laying the foundations for improving standards systematically and routinely, identifying under-performing prisons much earlier, and ensuring that robust remedial action is taken, there will, we hope, be fewer adverse reports from the chief inspector.
I have already given the House details of the additional funds that we have provided over and above those provided by the previous Administration for 1997–98 and 1998–99. There were additional funds in the comprehensive spending review that was announced in 1998 and came into force at the beginning of 1999. For the three-year comprehensive spending review period that starts at the beginning of March 2001, we are providing an extra £689 million, with a 7 per cent. cash-terms increase for 2001–02 alone.
The settlement will allow the service to increase capacity to cope safely with the expected prison population, which includes more than 2,500 extra places;

to upgrade health care centres; to enhance security; to maintain the very good record on escapes; and, significantly, to increase drug programmes and other regimes to reduce reoffending. In return, the service is signed up to challenging new targets on regime delivery.
Among the right hon. Lady's non-answers to interventions by Labour Members, I noticed her very long non-answer to the question on whether she was committing the Opposition at least to maintaining the Government's planned spending. In all the ever-changing commitments from the shadow Chancellor, that question has never been answered. As the right hon. Lady knows, however, I am always happy to give way to her on this, or any other, issue.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Does the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have the answer?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is much more likely to have the answer, not least because he is a good friend of the shadow Chancellor. Whether the right hon. Lady is such a friend is open to doubt; it is a moot point.
The right hon. Lady failed to mention that industrial relations were continually bedevilled inside the Prison Service by almost institutionalised conflict. I have worked hard to ensure that there is a new climate. That has required me—forcefully, at the beginning of my period in office—to make it clear to the Prison Officers Association that I considered there was no place within the Prison Service for industrial action. I am not talking only about strikes, but about other industrial action. On one or two occasions, that led me to seek injunctive action in the courts against the POA.
We have moved on from there, and I am grateful to the leaders of the POA for their constructive approach. I am glad to say that last week I announced the creation of a new pay review body for prison governors and officers, which will be chaired by Sir Toby Frere. I fully expect this to lead to improvements in staff performance, and in response the POA has made a voluntary commitment never again to take industrial action.
The right hon. Lady quite rightly tweaked me about my remarks in opposition about the idea of private prisons. I confess that I did not like the idea when it was first put forward. I thought there was a danger that profit would be put above the care of prisoners.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind.

Mr. Straw: As John Maynard Keynes famously said, "If circumstances change, I change. What do you do?" I confess; I have been informed by the facts. I plead guilty to that.

Miss Widdecombe: In two weeks.

Mr. Straw: It was not in two weeks. I spoke to the Bourne trust in 1995. [Interruption.] Of course I remember it; I remember a great deal. I was there, and my recollection is accurate. We shall come on to that later.
I changed my mind not least because, in March 1997, there was a unanimous report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs—involving Labour and Conservative Members—which provided a glowing endorsement of the conduct of private sector prisons.

Miss Widdecombe: I am very interested in this chronology; it is fascinating stuff. March 1997 was two months before a general election. If the Home Secretary had changed his mind then, did he make sure that people knew that he had had that change of mind before the general election? Local POAs were telling me that they were still being assured as late as March that prisons would no longer be privatised and that no further contracts would be let by the Government.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady is quite right to ask me about that, because my speech in October 1995 was rehashed in "Gatelodge". I am sorry that it was, but these things sometimes happen in the swirl of an election campaign.

Miss Widdecombe: So he did not tell the electorate.

Mr. Straw: The electorate were told, as a matter of fact. I certainly did not dine out on the issue during the 1997 election. I can give the right hon. Lady more details about the provenance of the "Gatelodge" article, which I do not think was persuasive one way or the other in the election. We did say that we wanted a mixed economy in which both the public and private sectors could flourish. We did not want the one-way street that she proposed, involving transfers from the public to the private sector only. We wanted a two-way street where increasingly the public sector would be challenged by the private sector, but where it too could challenge the private sector. That has happened in respect of Buckley Hall, Blakenhurst and Manchester, where the public sector continues to run the prisons but with clear arm's-length agreements.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: This is a serious issue. In March 1997, the Home Secretary had changed his mind on whether the private sector should be involved in running prisons. However, he allowed the POA—the vital sectoral interest whose members might change their vote depending on the policies of the particular parties—to labour under the illusion that he was still in favour of the public sector running prisons. That is an example of how the Labour party has run all its policies.

Mr. Straw: I do not think it is quite as significant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I have already explained that the speech I made in 1995 was rehashed into an article in early 1997. I do not think that people were misled in the way he suggests. I have been as open as I can about the provenance of that, and about the fact that, yes, I have changed my mind.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I hope that the right hon. Lady will tell us whether she will commit her party to the same levels of spending. She is very welcome to ask me two questions, and I look forward to her intervention.

Miss Widdecombe: We will spend what is necessary to supply the prison places.
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the substance of the point that we are discussing, rather than what he may or may not have said before the last election? He has decided to bring both Blakenhurst and Buckley Hall, which have had favourable reports and are generally recognised as excellent, back into public sector control. Will he acknowledge that the private sector has a built-in guarantee of delivery in that if delivery does not take place there is a financial penalty in the contract, whereas there is no such penalty in any public sector contract?
Secondly, and more important, if the public sector can do a better job of running two excellent prisons than the private sector which created the excellence, why is not the public sector doing that in its own prisons? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not accept that bid and say to the public sector, "If that's what you can do, go and do it for one of the miserably failing prisons in the public sector"?

Mr. Straw: That is exactly what we are doing. There has been a service level agreement in Manchester, and we are seeking to roll that out in other prisons. Having SLAs and clear arm's-length relationships, with the people in the prison being on the line when it comes to delivery, is a very sensible approach for the public as well as the private sector.
The competition for Buckley Hall and Blakenhurst was won fair and square. I am responsible for the decision, but it was made, quite properly, by the director general, as accounting officer. There are necessarily some differences between the public and private sectors because the public sector cannot go bust. However, so far as possible, we have ensured that the same disciplines will apply to the team running the Buckley Hall and Blakenhurst public sector arrangements as apply to the private sector.
I note that again the right hon. Lady was silent on whether the Opposition will match our promises in respect of money.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the earlier exchanges, my right hon. Friend may have missed the shadow Home Secretary saying, "We will spend what is necessary to supply the prison places." Does my right hon. Friend read into that a substantial commitment to additional expenditure that has hitherto not been admitted in the House of Commons?

Mr. Straw: If it means anything at all, it means a lot more money, especially as the right hon. Lady seemed to imply that she would seek to eliminate overcrowding and a great deal more.
Let me deal briefly with overcrowding, health care, prevention of reoffending, suicide, race relations, young offenders and prison industries.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about finance and resources before he moves on to other important matters.
The Library tells me that Prison Service expenditure from 1991–92 to 1999–2000 has risen from £1,462 million to £1,846 million. That is a 2 per cent. increase in real terms over nine years. In the same period, the prison population has gone up by 40 per cent. Are the Government prepared to make a commitment that, if re-elected, spend on the Prison Service will catch up with


what has fallen away and will keep pace with any increase in prison numbers that the Home Secretary appears to anticipate?

Mr. Straw: One point on which I entirely agreed with the previous Administration was that the Prison Service was capable both of increasing performance and cutting unit costs. There was substantial waste, and we have continued to cut it. The figures given by the hon. Gentleman are correct, but they would have been lower if we had not had to put in additional resources—£60 million and £112 million—for 1997–98 and 1998–99. I have already explained that the further three years of the comprehensive spending review involve a substantial increase, and that will provide, among other improvements, an additional 2,660 places.
We expect prisons to produce efficiencies, and I see nothing wrong with that. What was appalling about the pre-Woolf system was that it was both costly and poor. The increase in resources provided by the present Administration, particularly since the first comprehensive spending review for 1998–99, has been more satisfactory. I have sought to ensure that there are more resources. Numbers have risen, but at the same time all sorts of practices have improved.
I shall deal with a few more points briefly in the knowledge that many hon. Members want to get into the debate. On overcrowding, nearly 30 per cent. of prisoners in 1990–91 were held two or three to a cell. That figure has fallen to 16.9 per cent., which compares with a target of 18 per cent.
Some slopping out has been brought back, and that affects 123 prisoners at present. That differs from the arrangements that existed in 1990–91, however, because all those prisoners are able to obtain manual unlocking of their cells, so that they have 24-hour access, except if there is an emergency on their wing, to sanitation outside their cells.

Miss Widdecombe: On overcrowding, the right hon. Gentleman said proudly that the figure for putting two prisoners in a cell designed for one had fallen to 17.2 per cent., whereas the target was 18 per cent. Will he acknowledge that the figure that he inherited was 15.5 per cent., and that there has therefore, been some deterioration?

Mr. Straw: I cannot remember the exact figure—

Miss Widdecombe: It was 15.5 per cent.

Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Lady will hang on a moment, she will find that I am perfectly ready to accept her figures. There has been some downward change, and I regret it. However, that change has been in the context of a rising prison population. We have increased the numbers, but if the right hon. Lady wants to make a political point—

Miss Widdecombe: No.

Mr. Straw: She says she does not. Given that the right hon. Lady had planned much lower resources than we have put in, there would, under her plans, be many more people locked up two to a cell than is now the case.

Overcrowding is likely to remain a problem in prisons. It is not for me to set an artificial ceiling for the prison population, and I am not going to. We are putting in additional resources to ensure a considerable increase in the number of places available. I judge that sufficient places will be available.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Mr. Narey has called overcrowding in prisons a scourge, Lord Woolf called it a cancer and the former president of the Prison Governors Association called it an obscenity. Does my right hon. Friend accept that prison overcrowding has grave and damaging effects, and is it a priority of the Government to eliminate the problem?

Mr. Straw: Other things being equal, I should prefer there to be no overcrowding or having two prisoners to a cell. However, we must ensure that enough places are available to meet demand, and that is what we are trying to do. We are putting a lot of extra resources into the prison system to increase the total number of places available. In addition, some other Prison Service establishments that are experiencing overcrowding produce a good standard of care for prisoners, while others do not. Overcrowding in itself cannot be used as an excuse for under-performance, and we will not accept that it should be so used. In any event, the situation is radically different from that which prevailed 10 years ago.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald mentioned suicides. I am sorry that she tried to make a political point out of one of the gravest issues that faces the Prison Service. She used out-of-date figures. The number of suicides fell last year, although that is of small comfort. That fall—to 81, not 92 as claimed by the right hon. Lady—is the first for five years. At the Prison Service conference, I announced a new, proactive strategy to try to turn around the service's record on suicides.
We must work extremely hard to reduce the number of prisoner suicides, but we must work even harder to ensure that prisoners are safe in their cells. Last year, as everyone realises, the Prison Service failed in its duty of care to Zahid Mubarek. He was locked up, quite inappropriately, with a man who subsequently murdered him. The investigation revealed racism in the establishment—Feltham young offender institute. I both encourage and greatly welcome the investigation being conducted by the Commission for Racial Equality into racism in the Prison Service. When its recommendations are received, they will be acted on.
Not only is there racism between staff and prisoners, but it is also carried out by white staff on black and Asian staff. I am determined that it should be eliminated—as are my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the director general. One of the ways we are trying to do that is by establishing a race equality for staff—RESPECT—network for black and Asian staff in the Prison Service. The network was successfully launched by my right hon. Friend last month; the event was attended by 1,500 delegates. The Home Office's network now includes the RESPECT network. It provides an active voice for staff, so I know that it will be extremely important both in raising the concerns of black and Asian staff in the Prison Service and in ensuring a shift in approach and attitude.
The right hon. Lady mentioned health care. When the national health service was established in 1948, one of the few things that the then Government got wrong was that prison health services were not incorporated into it. Since then, the prison health service has been a Cinderella.

Miss Widdecombe: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to change that?

Mr. Straw: Yes. We have already announced joint working between the Prison Service and the NHS. In some areas, NHS trusts provide health care. In addition, £35 million has been allocated over the next three years to improve health care facilities.
The Prison Service has increasingly suffered from the abject failure of the so-called care in the community policy implemented by the previous Administration—although I doubt that the right hon. Lady agreed with that policy. The closure of large mental institutions without the provision of alternative care was appalling; since the late 1980s, it has led to a sevenfold increase in the proportion of the prison population with moderate to severe mental health problems.
Prisoners suffering from dangerous and severe personality disorders are among those with the greatest mental health problems. On 20 December last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health told the House of our joint proposals for managing that group. We have committed £126 million to fund a programme of pilot projects across the Prison Service and the NHS over the next three years, to research both a rigorous assessment tool and effective treatments.
The next pilot will provide extra places at HMP Whitemoor, alongside the existing assessment pilot centre, where therapeutic interventions will be piloted and evaluated. In addition, two new units are planned at HMP Frankland in Durham. The units will be built within a secure perimeter and will provide 100 assessment and treatment places; they are due to open in early 2003. A 70-place unit will open next year at the Rampton high security hospital. A further 70 places are planned within the NHS by 2004.
Purposeful activity is of critical importance. To make prison work, we must ensure that prisoners are better when they leave it than when they entered it—better educated and, as far as possible, better trained. They should receive advice and help to get them out of their offending behaviour.

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has previously heard me commend Usk prison for its training, education and sex offender treatment programmes. Will he be good enough to visit the prison? It could serve as a model for other prisons throughout the country.

Mr. Straw: I should be happy to visit Usk prison. Given the long list of visits that I have promised to make and have yet to fulfil, it may take a little time, but I shall certainly do my very best.
Purposeful activity has increased and the monthly figure for November was 24.6 hours. That is a steady improvement on last year, and we hope to meet the target that has been set.
Education is key. We have continued many of the good things that happened under the previous Administration—not the shattering of morale, which we have helped to restore. I am astonished that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald did not have the humility to recognise what had happened. We were determined to introduce a literacy and numeracy key performance indicator, which is now in place. By the end of this financial year, prisoners will have gained 9,000 full qualifications at basic skills level 2, making many of them employable on release for the first time.
We are investing £18 million over the next three years to secure a 50 per cent. increase in the number of qualifications obtained by prisoners. We have also put much more money into accredited offending behaviour programmes—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State can deal with that later—and a lot of effort and money into custody-to-work programmes to ensure that people in prison receive much better preparation to get jobs. We know for certain that if prisoners have a job to go to, they are much less likely to reoffend, and far too many of them do not have jobs to go to.
The last substantive point that I want to make is on prison industries. The right hon. Lady could not leave alone the issue of socks. [Interruption.] She is chuntering from a sedentary position that there are millions of socks. She suggested in her speech that 2.5 million pairs of socks had been produced in a year. In my world—perhaps not in hers—socks wear out, so if socks are not produced year by year, there is a really serious problem. All the sock production takes place in Gartree prison in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), which is the centre of the Leicestershire hosiery area. The industrial production of socks in the prison service is darn good value and we have developed a holistic approach, but I wish that the right hon. Lady would stop putting her foot into the matter.
Some 600,000 socks a year are produced in prison industries to meet the demand inside the Prison Service. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says from a sedentary positions that there are 65,000 people in prison, but she does not understand that many people leave prison within much less than a year, so the turnover of prisoners is much greater than she thinks. She keeps talking about early release, but every prisoner, apart from the 23 whole lifers, is eligible for early release.

Miss Widdecombe: Do they take the socks home with them?

Mr. Straw: No, I do not think they take the socks with them, although I am sure that they are not stripped of their socks as they leave prison. That minor, but important industry in Gartree is run for the benefit of the rest of the Prison Service.
I shall make some general remarks about industries in prison. Subject to meeting prisoners' other needs, the purpose of prison—apart from punishing prisoners with the loss of their liberty—is not only to have them producing things, but to try to make them better people so that they are less likely to reoffend. It cannot follow that the only way to achieve that is to give prisoners full-time work, because many of the functions that they undertake would not be ones for which they would find jobs in their own area when they come out. There must


be a balance, so I cast doubt on whether it is possible or sensible, within the overall aim of reducing reoffending, for every prisoner to be engaged full-time in work because there would be no time for anything else; it would be an inappropriate use of their time.
Yes, we should like more prisoners to be engaged in productive work. There is no argument about that. However, I have read the remarks that the right hon. Lady made on the subject at a Conservative party conference. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is aghast at the idea. However, the more that I listen to the right hon. Lady on the subject, the more I think that her idea for a self-financing plan to provide work for everybody is as well constructed and put together as the announcement that she made at the most recent party conference. I am sure that other countries also lock people up for their second minor offence of possessing cannabis. We can also find a state in the United States where people are locked up for life if they commit three tunes offences such as stealing a pizza.
It is always possible in matters of penal policy to find some administration somewhere that has come up with a more crackpot idea than the right hon. Lady. She can be assured of that.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Straw: Let me finish my point. However, by crackpot, I was referring to her ideas on cannabis.
Prison industry is a difficult issue. A Conservative Member raised the issue of our plans to expand the prison industry in his constituency with the director general. I shall give the right hon. Lady the hon. Gentleman's name in private because I have not asked him whether he is willing to have this case made public. The plan was far advanced, but the hon. Gentleman wrote in privately to suggest that it would seriously disrupt industries that pay its workers and he asked us to back away from the plan. Wisely in the light of the representations, the director general decided to do that because a serious number of jobs would be lost.
Some prison industries compete not with industries in this country, but with those abroad. For example, in data inputting—this may not be pleasant—we are competing with industries in the far east. That case does not create industrial relation problems or raise the issue of loss of profit here, but it is a difficult issue.
I am happy—this is a genuine offer—to sit down with the right hon. Lady to consider her calculations and examine how we can take her plan forward. We can argue about whether the figure is 65,000 or 30,000 full-time places, but we have a long way to go, so if we can create another 10,000 places, that is fine. However, she needs to be careful about making large promises that cannot and will not be fulfilled.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: Although other people are beckoning me to finish, I shall give way to her for the last time.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall be swift. Whenever the Home Secretary says that he is willing to consider an idea,

that heralds the fact that he has stolen yet another jolly good idea from us. However, on this occasion, I am very happy to discuss the issue with him, because I am aware of the case that he has quoted. If he studies my speech, he will see that I was very careful to say that it is possible to develop prison industry without competing with local labour. It is possible and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Hon. Members keep yelling "How?", but I suggest that they go to have a look at what happens in Blakenhurst.

Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Lady thinks that she can do what she says, let us try to pin the issues down. However, we must consider the calculations.
The right hon. Lady has suggested that none of us has ever run a business, but that is not true of many Labour Members—they have run businesses. However, one thing that I know for certain is that a number of my constituents are about to end up in the bankruptcy courts because they did not produce proper calculations when they went to see the bank manager to take out a loan. Calculations are critical to the running of a business. It does not matter which side we are on; it boils down to a consideration of the calculations and whether it is possible for the plan to be self-financing.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way on this point?

Mr. Straw: Yes, but then I must conclude my speech.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there any need to beat about the bush? Is not the reality that the shadow Chancellor has told the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that he is not prepared to give her any more money, so she had to find a ruse to convince the public that more resources would be available? She has come up with an idea that she grossly exaggerates. Those are the facts, so why cannot we spell them out?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend could be right. For me, the jury is out.

Mr. Ian Bruce: It will not be a jury trial.

Mr. Straw: I think that this case requires a jury trial. I wait to see the calculations.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the director general and I spoke at the annual conference of the Prison Service last week, we all emphasised the need to drive up performance and to maintain the pace of change in the service. The work done in prisons is difficult and I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the dedication of governors, prison officers and other staff and to the work of the many volunteers who help bridge the gap in the community. I also pay a personal tribute to the Director General of the Prison Service and his staff at its headquarters for their excellent leadership.
The facts reflect my belief that conditions for the vast majority of prisons are improving. Understandably, we hear about the reports that the chief inspector of prisons produces on failing prisons, but we hear much less about the


many more reports in which he praises prisons for adequate, good or excellent performance. We all recognise the need to continue to improve the performance of some prisons but, above all, we need to remember that it is the purpose of prisons to prevent offending and reoffending. That is the goal of our strategy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the opportunity to have such an important debate. Like the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the Home Secretary, we are glad to have a few hours in which to raise some of the issues, even if we do not receive all the answers. On a more mischievous note, I wondered whether the right hon. Lady had thought of becoming self-financing herself, which might be in everyone's interest.
The past few weeks have been vital for the debate on the Prison Service. The Lord Chief Justice made an important contribution in his lecture 10 years after the Woolf report and the director general made a crucial speech at last week's Prison Service conference. In addition, today's press includes an important article by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham. He has been assiduous in making his views clear and has used his independence to do his job very well, as did his predecessor.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs made three initial proposals in its third report of this Parliament in the 1997–98 Session. It acknowledged that
The increased prison population places enormous strains on the Prison Service and, given the budget constraints in which it operates, has an adverse effect on prison regimes and the amount of rehabilitative work which can be done in them.
It proposed a much better target for purposeful activity. In its second proposal, it confirmed:
The rapidly escalating prison population makes it of paramount importance to investigate credible alternatives to custody and to use them wherever appropriate.
With regard to its third proposal, it said:
We note the insistence of the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons that there are many people in custody who do not need to be there.
All those statements reflect Liberal Democrat concerns.
However, none of us underestimates the difficulty of running the Prison Service, whether as a Minister, Home Secretary, director general or anyone else who is involved in its management. It is a hard, but vital, job, and we thank those people who are involved in the service. I pay tribute to the governors whom I have met on my visits to prisons in the 15 months since I have had responsibility for home affairs. I appreciate the hospitality of their management and staff, who were willing to answer all questions. Almost without exception, I found them impressive and encouraging. They certainly know what they want to do and it was interesting that they often gave similar messages about where improvements could be made.
I want to single out one or two people. I had an interesting conversation with the president of the Prison Governors Association when I visited Durham prison a few days ago, and I intend to deal with two of his concerns. He made clear the widespread view that many

people should not be in prison and that the service is unable to cope well with them. He explained that there may never be adequate resources to manage people who stay in prison for only a short time and who the service cannot prepare for life back on the outside.
I visited the women's high-security section of Durham prison. One woman told me that she should not be in prison because she stabbed someone after being mentally ill for a number of years. She said that she should be receiving treatment in hospital. Although I understand why the decision was taken to put her in prison, many people in prison have been failed by our mental health services. Hospital would have been a better place to deal with that woman.
I visited two very different prisons in a short time—Lancaster, which I think is the oldest prison in the country, and Doncaster, which, as one of the newest prisons, is also doing a particularly good job. I have changed my view on private sector prisons and believe that it might be appropriate for them to exist, provided that they have suitable, enforceable contracts with the public sector. It is useful to remind the public sector that the private sector offers an alternative and can set an example for it to follow. I accept that it is easier to produce better services in a brand new prison than it is in a very old prison such as Lancaster, which is hundreds of years old. However, even some old prisons do excellent work. Lancaster runs extremely good sessions on the rehabilitation of sex offenders and how prisoners can deal with drugs, alcohol and anger management. The fact that it is an old prison does not mean that it cannot follow good practice.
I have also seen transformations in London, although plenty still need to take place. Wandsworth prison has improved significantly, but that is not the case for Brixton. I am probably in and out of Brixton more than any other prison. I should make it clear that that is always for constituency reasons—colleagues know that I am here far too often for there to be any other explanation. Brixton prison is not only overcrowded but unable to cope properly with the pressure that is placed on it. Many of its prisoners are on remand and should not be there.
Leeds prison made the strongest impression on me. According to the league table, it has the greatest overcrowding of any prison in England and Wales. I visited it a few weeks after the new governor was appointed and could see the difference that Mrs. Stacey Tasker had already made. I did not know the previous governor, but little changes had apparently made a huge difference. Daily morning meetings allowed the management to exchange their experiences of what had happened the day before. The new governor decided to move the previous governor's office from the prefab outside the prison building to the middle of the prison, so that every time she went in and out of her door she could see what was going on. She also decided to walk around without colleagues, which made her much more free to talk to prisoners. I pay tribute to such innovative governorship, which should be seen more often.
I should also like the Minister to know that I was privileged to visit Leeds prison for two days when the prison inspectorate was carrying out an inspection. I think that I am the first Member of Parliament to participate in such a visit. It did an excellent job and I pay tribute to it.


Its staff were courteous and helpful, and effective across a range of activities. I enjoyed my time with them and thank them for that opportunity.
Prison numbers are rising significantly. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in the past nine years. We have more prisoners per head of population than any European country except Portugal and a large number of remand prisoners, although that has dropped slightly in the past couple of years, even though 50 per cent. of remand prisoners do not receive custodial sentences. It must be wrong to lock up so many of them before they are tried when the courts subsequently decide not to imprison so many of them.
The Home Secretary knows that I am concerned about Prison Service expenditure. In nine years, there has been a 2 per cent. increase in expenditure for a 40 per cent. increase in numbers, which cannot be explained by the service becoming more efficient. It is impossible to get 38 per cent. efficiency savings in that time. The Director General of the Prison Service made it clear how he and his colleagues had resisted the efficiency savings that it was unreasonable to ask them to make.
As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald explained, prisoner activity has, sadly, been reduced. I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that purposeful activity has increased in the past few months. However, a parliamentary answer from the prisons Minister to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 12 December shows that since the Conservatives left office, purposeful activity has decreased, which is inexcusable. The figures vary widely throughout the prisons estate, but on average prisoners spend only 23.7 hours a week on such activity. Prisoners are not prepared for release and a constructive life outside if they spend half their time locked up with nothing to do.
The statistics for the amount of time spent on education, on farms and in industries seems to show a decrease while the prison population has gone up, which is a tragedy. [Interruption.] I say to the Minister that I am aware that figures differ throughout the service, and some prisons are better than others. That is true of all the prison statistics. Some prisons have no overcrowding, and others, such as Leeds, have 800 prisoners living two or three to a cell. The last statistic revealed by parliamentary answers that I should like to refer to is that the number of hours spent outside the cell varies hugely too.
That leads me to my first conclusion about what has been going wrong. The director general said that he was not willing to go on making excuses for what happens in the Prison Service. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of management and Ministers to deliver consistency throughout the service. Although there has been improvement in some areas, many things have gone wrong in many places over the past four years. The director general admits that there has not been a general improvement.
Some of us believe that there are too many people in prison, and that we ought to try to reduce that number. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), told me that there are comparable reoffending rates for those who have been inside and those who have not. Figures are difficult, and I do not want to make the matter too complex, but the ball-park figures are that 57 per cent. of those who go to prison reoffend within two years, which is not a great

success rate, and those who receive sentences that are a good alternative to custody, such as community sentences, have a less than 50 per cent. reoffending rate. Good alternatives are therefore much more successful than wasted time in prison.
Lord Chief Justice Woolf made it clear that we often send people to prisons that have totally ineffective regimes for dealing with them, whereas a constructive alternative outside prison would be far better. We ought to ask ourselves who is in prison who ought not to be. There are many women, people with mental illness, prisoners on remand and people serving short sentences who should not be in prison. If policy makers considered those four categories of people, we could significantly reduce the prison population and introduce a sentencing regime that keeps many people out of prison while more effectively preventing them from reoffending. In prison, often little is done to prevent that, and sometimes positive harm is done by keeping people locked up.
In his lecture the other day, the Lord Chief Justice, referring to a comment made by Churchill when he was Home Secretary, said that one of the tests of a civilised society is how we look after our prisons.

Miss Widdecombe: Exactly.

Mr. Hughes: Before the right hon. Lady gets too carried away in agreeing with me, I point out that another test is how we treat asylum seekers and refugees. The real tests are the difficult issues and the difficult people, and we are currently failing those tests.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but sentencing is ultimately a matter for the courts. The courts are not constrained to send people to prison, save in exceptional circumstances. When they send people to prison they are reflecting public opinion. The real task, therefore, is to change public opinion.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very knowledgeable and I accept his point. I remind him, however, that in opinion polls the public say that sentences should be tougher. However, all surveys show that members of the public grossly underestimate the length of sentences. Public opinion is based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts. If the public knew how long sentences are, they would not call for them to be longer.
I am sure that the public want a better system for reducing reoffending rates. Prison governors are agreed that it is a priority to have regimes within prisons that hugely reduce the chance of people reoffending when released. There are only two ways of doing that. The first is to have a good purposeful activity regime of sport, work, training or education. The second method is to prepare people effectively for release. I have not found a prison in the country—a local prison with other responsibilities—where the staff have not said, "We have no time to prepare short-term prisoners for release. They have no training. They come in and go out before we can do anything with them because we are concentrating on long-term prisoners." It is those short-term prisoners who reoffend most often: they burgle; they go into prison and come out again; they burgle again and go back to prison. We are


failing many of the people whom we put in prison. Sentencing is a matter for the courts, but they hope that when people are in prison, something will happen to persuade them not to reoffend. Nothing happens to them. They are locked up and then sent out with no assistance.

Mr. Stinchcombe: The single greatest factor in determining whether someone is likely to reoffend on release is whether he has a stable family life to return to. The lack of that increases the chances of reoffending by as many as six times. In light of that, is the hon. Gentleman disappointed that 26,000 prisoners are still held more than 50 miles from the Crown court where they were committed?

Mr. Hughes: I am disappointed. The hon. Gentleman is right, and I saw those figures in the Lord Chief Justice's report. Many people have made the point that we must move towards having community prisons for all but the most high-risk offenders. The director general said that that was still a dream. It should not be a dream. [Interruption.] I say to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that I know that it is a difficult matter. As a south-east of England Member, as she is, I know that there are many prisoners from the south-east, but not enough prisons in the region to cater for them, so they get dispersed throughout the country. None the less, we must try to ensure that prisoners are kept as close to home as possible.
People must not only be prepared for release, but supported after release. If a prisoner has a family, work, a home and support to prevent him from going back to drug and alcohol abuse, he is far more likely to get back on the straight and narrow rather than to get into the reoffending cycle.
My conclusion is that the Prison Service delivers no consistency of standard throughout the prison estate, as is clear from the chief inspector's report. There is a lack of resources. That situation may be improving, but it is still appalling. My hon. Friends and I think that automatic mandatory sentences are wrong, but if the prison population is to increase, the Government must provide resources not only to build prisons but to do the rehabilitative work in the prisons too.
We must seek answers on overcrowding. The Home Secretary did not give a single specific answer about that. The Lord Chief Justice's question, which was also posed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and others, asked what the Government will do to tackle overcrowding. When will they tackle the problem? Do the Government accept that it is the overwhelming priority, and will they give it the attention that the Lord Chief Justice called for? When will we have a full constructive activity regime over the 35-hour week? When will pre-release preparation be provided for every prisoner who is about to leave?
We all agree about the objectives, but we disagree on specific answers. The Minister said, sotto voce, that the Government must be congratulated on better working between the Prison Service and the health service. I congratulate them on that, but I fail to understand why the NHS cannot run the prison medical service. I have not met a single prison officer who does not agree with me

about that. The Government have been weak about this for a reason that I do not understand. We need only an announcement that the national health service will take over running the prison medical service. It is not difficult because only one agreement is needed. The move would provide much better career prospects both for those working outside prisons and those inside them. A much better service would be provided for prisoners and prisoners' families in the prison estate.
In the sentencing review that is approaching, we must allow courts to be able to impose community sentences and licences and probation for two years, no matter how short the prison sentence is. At present, I believe that a short sentence cannot have a community condition attached to it. That is nonsensical. The sooner that is changed, the better. Greater flexibility will keep many more people outside prisons.
We must aim at more community prisons, and we must not be dogmatic about whether they are run by the public service or the private sector.
I say carefully, but equally strongly, that prison officers must be much more progressive in many cases and much less conservative. There are some very good prison officers but they are hardly the vanguard of reform of the Prison Officers Association. I may not be loved for saying this, but when Mrs. Tasker took over in Leeds, I believe that she found that the gym was not able to be used for much of the day because the officers would not manage the prisoners to use it. Workshops were lying idle for much of the day because officers would not manage movements in and out of them. When education facilities exist, but are not being used, it is nonsensical. Management, working with progressive leadership in the Prison Officers Association, must change the defensive regime and have innovative, constructive and maximum utilisation of the prison estate.
I hope that the Minister will give us targets for reducing the numbers of prisoners who should be imprisoned. I hope also that he will give us targets for achieving full and purposeful activity. In addition, I hope that he will answer the question posed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about when we shall have a real reduction in overcrowding. Liberal Democrat Members are sad that the Government appear to be accepting what I thought was a Tory view, not a Labour view, that there will be an ineluctable rise in the numbers of people in prison. We think that the numbers should not be increasing to the extent that the Government are predicting. If we try to keep as many people out of prison as we can rather than put more and more people into prison, it is likely that we shall be serving the public interest far better.

Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who speaks with authority given his experience of prisons in the south-east, especially Brixton. He has a liberal approach, which I would commend.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made some powerful points. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department also made some powerful points about the need for mental health prisoners not to be in prison. He spoke also of the problems of overcrowding and the


need for the medical service in the Prison Service to be taken into the national health service. The right hon. Lady made some important and powerful comments about Brixton and Feltham, with which I could not disagree. These are scandals and there needs to be a public debate about them.
My experience of the Prison Service is restricted to my constituency, and that is as a visitor. I have visited Usk prison on about six occasions. I have also visited one or two constituents in other prisons. That is the limit of my knowledge of the subject.
I well remember the Woolf report, which made some important recommendations. One of the first times I visited Usk prison was soon after the Woolf report was published. It is a category C prison. Also in my constituency is the Prescoed young offender institution. Usk prison now contains mainly sex offenders. That follows the concentration of sex offenders after the Strangeways riots, including the riots in the 1980s.
As I have said, I have visited Usk prison about six times. A couple of years ago, I was there when His Royal Highness Prince Edward visited. I was, too, on another occasion, when Her Royal Highness Princess Anne visited. However, I also visited only three weeks ago, and that was prompted by three distinctions that the prison had achieved. I am grateful to the governor, Ray Coomber, for the invitation and for the opportunity to discuss matters with him.
The first distinction for the prison was to be awarded the Investors in People award. It is the second time that that has happened in Usk. I well remember meeting the prison officers who achieved the award only a few years ago. There is tremendous camaraderie among the prison officers and a great sense of humour. They say that everything we ever saw in "Porridge" can be confirmed by prison life.
Recently, Usk prison was awarded a charter mark. Most importantly, it had a successful inspection report. The inspection was undertaken between 13 and 17 March 2000. The inspector identified what he called the Welsh dimension. In Wales, we have four prisons—Usk, Cardiff, Swansea and the private Parc prison at Bridgend. One of the problems is that we do not have a prison in north Wales. Another is that we do not have a women's prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey have spoken of the importance of prisoners serving sentences as close as possible to where they live. Prisoners from north Wales, many of whom will be Welsh speaking, will have to go to prisons outside Wales.
The inspector commended Usk prison, saying:
In taking forward this role for the prison
that is, specialising in sex offender treatment programmes—
the Governor and his staff have developed very effective procedures for dealing with this particular group of offenders, who have certain specific characteristics, including the facts that they tend to be unpopular, ageing and compliant. Impressively, the whole staff of the prison is involved with their treatment, every Department including the Chaplaincy and the Board of Visitors, playing its part. Sentence Planning supports throughcare and resettlement rather than being an exercise in itself. Education is the main provider of work, due to the lack of other facilities.
It is important that those other facilities be developed.
Later on, the inspector said:
The result is a most impressive degree of support for programmes in their widest sense—and the staff who deliver them—which we highlight as good practice.
The Director General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, commented on the report:
I would like to praise the Governor and staff for the excellent work which is being carried out at HMP Usk and HMYOI Prescoed, and commend the staff's enthusiasm in making it possible to carry out the Operating Standards Audit without any reduction in the regime.
The sex offender treatment programme has developed significantly over the past few years. About three years ago, three members of the staff were specialising in the programme. There is now a section of about 11, consisting of psychologists, probation officers and prison officers who undergo specialist training.
Given what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said about the progressive attitude of staff, it was interesting to listen to prison officers who described their attitudes when they first entered the service and how they have changed. They have become more progressive and more rehabilitative. They now realise, significantly, that offenders need not reoffend. They have an important role not only in punishing prisoners but in rehabilitating them for the society that they will invariably rejoin.
I remember one prison officer saying, "I was a hard-nosed screw when I came here." He is now involved in sex offender treatment programmes and other rehabilitation programmes.
I shall quote one of the prisoners who has gone through the sex offender treatment programme. It is called "Steve's Opinion", and the assessment is publicly available. It reads:
The Core Programme … gave me an understanding of the ordeal that I put my victims through. I saw how my victim blamed herself for my offence, how afraid she was of telling anyone what had happened to her in case she was not believed, how her self-confidence was destroyed and how frightened she was of ever seeing me again. These are just a few of the things that I put my victims through.
He concluded:
In short, I would say that to offend was the worst decision of my life; to attend the Core Programme was the best decision of my life. Having now completed the Core Programme, I would now go as far as suggesting that any sex offender who claims to regret his actions owes it to his victims and to himself to attend the Core Programme.
Nothing can condone what some offenders have committed. However, it is important that they have the opportunity to undertake sex offender rehabilitation programmes. I understand that the non-reoffending rate of prisoners who have gone through such a programme is 46 per cent. That is particularly significant, but it would be more significant if it was nearer 100 per cent. That programme needs to be developed throughout the whole Prison Service.
When I was last in Usk prison, I met prison officers and prisoners who go out to meet children and young people in schools and try to deter them from offending. I pay particular tribute to one prison officer, Ian Sandigate, whom I would describe as a rather rough-looking prop forward and someone who would frighten young people, but perhaps also a gentle giant. I also commend the prisoner whom I met; he is known as Mossy and he accompanies Mr. Sandigate on those visits. They work together and go to schools to give children and young


people a realistic idea of what prison life is like. They will describe, not necessarily Usk prison, which may not be typical, but local bang-up prisons of which they have both had experience.
I saw the importance of the education and training programme at the new designated NVQ centre. Many prisoners at Usk are unlikely to get normal employment again, given their record. They are developing skills so that they can take up self-employment. I saw the information technology provision and the literacy programme, which is being organised through Coleg Gwent, the local further education college. I saw the IT facilities: the prisoners have much better IT facilities than the staff who are working on administrative affairs at the prison, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into that. I visited the farm, and saw the work that some prisoners are doing there. They are developing skills through the woodland strategy, which encourages them to understand woodland nature and to develop their own businesses in sustainable wood production.
In conclusion, the director general's recent report and speech were particularly significant. I hope that Usk prison will be regarded as a model for the country to follow. I accept that the nature of the prisoners there may make it distinctive, but it is important that the Prison Service gets the balance right to protect the public, provide punishment, provide disincentives to crimes that require that people go to prison, and rehabilitate people for the society to which they will return.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Like the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), I have visited Usk prison. I thought that it was very good, and I am glad that it is keeping up the standards that I observed; but many prisons are hopeless and degrading places, and many have always been so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) quoted Winston Churchill; it is nearly a century since he said that a test of a civilised country is the way in which it treats its prisoners. The Lord Chief Justice, the chief inspector of prisons and the Director General of the Prison Service—in a passionate speech only last week—have all reminded us of how bad prisons can be. No doubt some tabloid editors who would, by implication, dismiss Churchill as a wimpish do-gooder, regard prisons as holiday camps. I do not believe, however, that most of the public do.
Whatever the arguments on civilisation and morality, it makes no sense for society to spend—or, as the Government would say, invest—so much on or in a system that produces over 50 per cent. reoffending, in the case of adult prisons, and over 80 per cent. in the case of young offender institutions. In reality, those figures are even worse than they appear, because crime is generally a young person's occupation, especially young people from fractured homes. Most of them grow out of crime by their early 30s, leaving the suspicion that those who do not have become embedded in a criminal substratum because of, not in spite of, their experience in prison.
Of course, there is a huge number of dedicated people throughout the Prison Service running excellent programmes and producing a positive effect on the

prisoners in their charge. Quite rightly, the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend have quoted them. However, by looking on the bright side and constantly doing justice to them, it is dangerously easy to obscure quite how negative and third-rate much of the system is. I am certain that no Minister, whether in this Government or the previous one, wants it like that. It is true that some of my colleagues in the previous Government thought that prisons should be austere—which is how most prisons remain—but they always preceded that adjective with "decent", and they meant it. The reasons why the problem nevertheless remains intractable are many and difficult.
First, there is overcrowding. As has been said many times in this debate and outside the House, there is a major impediment to constructive work if prison officers are obliged simply to run a convict warehouse. The Government's answer, like the previous Government's, is to build more prisons. However, that should not be their top priority; they should look at sentencing first. Short sentences, in which the prisoner is inside for only a few weeks or months, are pointless. They simply ensure that the prisoner loses his job, if he has one, and possibly break up his family, if he has one; the retention of both being key factors in his keeping out of trouble in the future. What is more, rapidly bringing him in and out of prison creates maximum disruption for the Prison Service, and does not give it time to do any remedial work.
On the other hand, long sentences, which drive up the prison population, have become increasingly common. There is no sign that, as deterrents, they are any more effective than rather shorter ones. It is plain that, even if the right programmes were available in prison, sentences are frequently far longer than is necessary to produce the maximum beneficial impact. Indeed, past a certain point, prisoners become institutionalised and are less able to lead a law-abiding life on release than they would be if released earlier. In practice, sentencing is a crucial process, but to me it seems hopelessly crude.
For the most part, judges are intelligent and thoughtful. However, when it comes to sentencing, they seem to be saying little more than "What do we usually give in this sort of case?" They increase the sentence by 20 per cent. for a bad example of the crime, and knock off 20 per cent. for extenuating circumstances. It is good that John Halliday at the Home Office and Lord Justice Auld are looking separately at that issue. I hope that they will go back to first principles and, in particular, do that which is seldom done: consider the effect that the sentence is supposed to have on the prisoner on whom it is passed.
I said that prison building ought not to be the priority. Of course, there is sense in building new prisons to replace those that were constructed in a way that makes it hard to provide the range of activity essential for a good regime. However, what is really needed, if conditions are to be improved, is the building of secure hospitals, in which the large number of severely mentally disordered prisoners can be properly treated. That would give them a far greater chance of recovery than they have in the prison system, which simply cannot cope with them, and would make it possible for prison staff to concentrate much more singlemindedly and effectively on those prisoners who remain more or less in touch with reality.
I was glad that the Home Secretary said that co-operation between the national health service and prisons is much closer than it was. However, that is an area in which completely joined-up government is


essential, and we have not got it yet. Plenty has been said about the lack of education, skills training and drug, alcohol and offending behaviour programmes, and about the need for real work. The situation is much worse than it appears from the figures, because sometimes programmes that are recorded as being offered do not function, sometimes they are available only to a limited number of prisoners—indeed, that is generally the case—and many are not well run.
Disciplined, paid work, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary would put at the centre of the regime, has a lot of attractions and it would be interesting to see how much it can be developed. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not go too far down that route when she is Home Secretary. Inevitably, paid work in prison will be limited in range and skill content because of the size of prisons and the turnover of prisoners. What should be at the centre is a flexible range of programmes, directed at the needs of the individual prisoner and at those problems of skill, motivation and personality that get in the way of his capacity to lead a law-abiding life on release.
It is important, not just for the prisoner, but even more for the society that he will rejoin, that prison regimes address the individual prisoner's needs and problems, which should be identified in good sentence plans but often are not. What is most wrong in many prisons is not the poverty of the various programmes, but the fact that, too often, the prevailing atmosphere and relationships are conditioned not by the policies of the governor and his staff, but by the nastiest prisoners. It makes the work of well-meaning officers ineffective, and ensures that frightened and bullied prisoners cannot easily respond positively. There are some prisons where the governor's decisions and policies are carried through, and other prisons where they run into the sand or, at best, have a muffled and distorted impact somewhere down the line.
That is a major managerial problem in the service. Its solution must involve winning the understanding and full co-operation of more junior staff. Few mistreat prisoners, though some do, but far too many do not see it as their role to get to know the prisoners in their charge, to treat them with respect or to provide them with the positive encouragement that they need to make full use of the opportunities offered by the prison.
If prisoners are to learn to respect other people, and their persons and property when they come out, that is how they must be treated inside. What is the good of sending criminals to prison, undermining their dignity, winding them up in numerous petty ways and then turning them out into society angrier and more inadequate than when they went in? There needs to be far more training and retraining of prison staff at all levels, with much more serious oversight of their performance and a determination, however difficult and expensive, to terminate the services of those who cannot contribute to improving the way in which their prison runs and the prisoners in their care are treated.
Finally, I do not believe that Ministers of either party have ever appreciated how complicated the Prison Service is or how difficult it is to run. Prisons are a budget hotel chain, a string of training centres a collection of mental hospitals, remedial schools and workshops in which guests, trainees, pupils and patients all badly want to be somewhere else. That is why the service is flooded with so many priorities, all making sense in themselves,

but this week's one inevitably militating against the effective execution of last week's—and in its turn destined to be overtaken by next week's.
It is impossible for Ministers, even those who have the administrative skills, to run the system, as they have manifold other responsibilities and can attend to prisons for only part of their time. When I was at the Home Office in 1993, we set up the agency, which was intended to give professional managers the scope to manage well. It has had some success, but less than I had hoped because we did not go far enough—indeed, events subsequent to its setting up drew the Prison Service back more closely into the Home Office.
The time has come for Ministers to do that which Ministers find hardest—to surrender their daily power to intervene. That would leave Ministers free to concentrate on what they are really for: broad policy issues, of which there are more than enough in the Home Office requiring their attention. That would enable the Select Committee and Parliament to provide a continuing oversight. Above all, it would give management the chance to emerge completely from ministerial shadow, to provide the leadership and continuity that the organisation badly needs, and to embark on long-term institutional reform. If such a system is to be sustained, it will inevitably be long term—far longer than the term of office of even the longest-serving Minister.
The Government who devise such a robust and long-sighted system will do more to improve permanently the quality of what is done in the prison system than any number of well-meaning policy initiatives or short-term crisis management. I look forward in hope to what the Minister says in his winding-up speech.
Before I sit down, one other thought occurs to me. It has always been a source of frustration to those who want the prisons to serve the community better that community interest in the criminal justice system seems to stop at the prison gate. It is surely time for prisoners to be able to vote. It would certainly draw all candidates inside and be an education to them, their local parties and, through them, the wider public. As the number of prisoners is small compared with the number of voters outside, there is no chance that the interests of prisoners would be preferred to those of the rest of the electorate, but it would help to point up where the long-term interests of prisoners and society at large coincide, to the real benefit of both.

Mr. David Winnick: I agree with the last point made by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd)—prisoners should be able to vote, and I see no argument against that.
The Director General of the Prison Service made a courageous speech, and I suspect that that was the reason for today's debate. As I said in an intervention, I am, for once, in a charitable mood towards the Opposition. The Prison Service should be the subject of debate. I believe that this is the first time that the Opposition have raised the topic in this Parliament. Be that as it may, we have a responsibility, especially as so many of our prisons are an utter disgrace.
In his speech, the director general said:
Year after year, governor after governor"—
he was not speaking of just the past four years
inspection after inspection, prisons like these have been exposed. Year after year the exposure has led to a flurry of hand wringing, sometimes a change of governor, a dash of capital investment, but no real or sustained improvement.
In the short time—three minutes—at my disposal, I draw to the attention of the House the level of violence, bullying and physical abuse that occurs in prisons and has done for so many years. The House should be extremely concerned about that. Sometimes, the physical abuse is carried out by prison staff. Former prison staff from Wormwood Scrubs were jailed only last year. More often, however, bullying and violence are carried out by prisoners themselves, which make life that much more of a hell for other prisoners. The aims of rehabilitating prisoners and helping a good number of them to lead a law-abiding life when they leave prison is undermined by what takes place day in, day out in prisons.
I shall make a few brief points before the Opposition claim their time. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke for the Opposition, disagreed about the number in prison, but I agree with what has been said by others, particularly the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). For many prisoners, there is no alternative to prison, but where there is a reasonable chance that the community will not be harmed, we should increasingly consider non-custodial sentences.
There is no chance, in my view, of substantial prison improvement and reform if prisoner numbers keep on rising. It is easy to send a person to prison and to believe that the community will therefore be safe, but what happens when prisoners other than those serving a life sentence are released? As a former Home Secretary, Lord Hurd, said, it is important to bear in mind that those who go to prison will eventually come out.
Finally, I have the greatest respect not only for the Director General of the Prison Service—I wish that he had spoken before—but for the chief inspector of prisons. Time and again, Sir David Ramsbotham and his predecessor spotlighted the failings. Yes, that embarrassed the previous Government and no doubt it embarrassed my Government, but I believe that what the chief inspector did was essential. I regret that Sir David is not being reappointed and I understand that an advertisement will be placed in the press to publicise the vacancy. The new chief inspector will not fulfil his duties properly if he does not speak out with the same courage and independence as the current chief inspector and his predecessor.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This may be as much a point of frustration as a point of order, but is it not regrettable that, as a consequence of the Government making an education statement on an Opposition day, only one Conservative Back Bencher has been able to contribute to the debate? I feel slightly annoyed about that because I believe that I am the only Member who intended to participate who has sentenced someone to prison. I also happen to have two prisons in my constituency. It is

regrettable that I have been unable to catch your eye, but is it not also regrettable that the Government have taken up an hour, which has truncated the debate in a thoroughly unsatisfactory manner?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments.

Mr. John Bercow: We have had a good if all too brief debate and the complaint made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) testifies, if testimony were needed, to the Government's grossly insensitive handling of their business, which has deprived us of a proper opportunity to discuss our motion.
The debate was magnificently opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary. In a thoughtful, impassioned and statesmanlike speech, she made it abundantly clear that there was not a golden age for prisons under our Government. We acknowledge that prison conditions were poor, but they were improving then, so it is incumbent on the Government to recognise that they are worse and deteriorating now. That is the significant point.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a characteristically sincere, reflective and constructive speech and although I do not agree with all his remarks, I respect them none the less. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) gave a timely warning against complacency from the vantage point of someone with real and direct experience of the system. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) legitimately pointed to improvements in service in his constituency, and he was justly proud of those. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), with whom I rarely agree, nevertheless made a fully civilised speech. He spoke with conviction and passion, but I am afraid that I profoundly disagree with him on the entitlement of prisoners to vote.
The facts in Her Majesty's inspector's reports speak for themselves. That on Brixton of June 2000 describes a service going "steadily downhill", conditions that are "totally unacceptable" and no workshops or education facilities worthy of the name. That on Feltham of September 1999 talks of only 15 hours purposeful activity a week instead of the target of 23.5 and of 90 people in full-time education and 700 receiving no education at all. Kids expect to be incarcerated for 23 out of 24 hours a day and get no fresh air for days on end.
At Portland, as the November 1999 report all too eloquently testifies, the conditions were, in the judgment of the inspector, "nothing short of scandalous". He observed, and all Members of the House would agree, that it was
outrageous that young people and children should be required to live in such conditions.
If all that is not a sorry enough tale, the position at Wandsworth is equally bad. We are told that there is a "pervasive culture of fear" and an attitude that is "callous and uncaring".
What emerges from all the reports and the testimony of independent witnesses, who advise Members of the House, is that, too often, education in prisons, which


should be the route to reform and future hope, is grossly inadequate, poorly structured, rarely co-ordinated and therefore inevitably defective in the results that it produces. Too often, young people, chronically and almost criminally, I dare to say, are moved from one institution to another before they complete the courses on which they have embarked, the results of which could benefit them and the wider community. Indeed, in many examples it is sad, but, nevertheless, salutary to recall that people in prison can acquire doctorates only in barbarism and criminal study. That is a tragedy and a damning indictment of the Government, who have had four years to translate their highfalutin words into meaningful and purposeful reality.
Assaults on prisoners are up 25 per cent.; assaults on staff are up 20 per cent.; and incidents of self-harm in prisons and young offender institutions stand at 7,398, which represents a 35 per cent. rise. The Home Secretary cannot gainsay the fact, no matter how he tries to quibble, that prison suicides have soared under this Government. Appalling conditions are inadequately attended to and Ministers are grossly complacent, but still they busily implement the home detention curfew scheme, which has released 31,000 serious offenders, typically before they have served even half of their sentences. We know that, as a result, about 1,000 extra offences, including two rapes and several assaults on policemen, have been committed.
I say to the prisons Minister that those incidents have happened on his watch. They should be on his conscience, for the blood that has resulted from those early releases and violent offences is surely on his hands. Prisons should be places for reform, not ruination; for deterrence, not degradation; for punishment, not purgatory. The director general has challenged the Government to make a reality of the rhetoric of decency and of dignity. It is nevertheless sad to recall that the Government, as we see in example after example after example, are preoccupied with the trappings of office and the perks of power. They are all too remote, I regret to say, from the failures of their policy and the damage done to victims as a direct consequence of that failure.
The Government, the Home Secretary and the prisons Minister have failed prisoners, failed victims, failed hard-working staff and failed the public. Wherever we look, we see purposeful activity declining. The quantity and quality of education is inadequate. The increase in slopping out is deplorable. The morale of those charged with delivering the service has been depressed and is probably worse than it has been in a generation.
I suggest to the House and the prisons Minister, who should have a full opportunity to reply, that there has been a litany of woes from a smug, self-satisfied and complacent Government who have failed to deliver. After four years of consistent inadequacy and repeated failure, it is time for a Government with an insatiable thirst for public office to give way to an Opposition with an insatiable thirst for public service.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): An Opposition with a great deal of brass neck! The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) comes to the Dispatch Box to deliver a speech that does no justice to the serious debate that we were having. The reality is that the Government have begun to address,

in a determined manner, the underlying problems that have bedevilled the Prison Service for many, many years. Let us cool it for a moment and take a more reflective look at the seriousness of the task in hand.
The overriding Prison Service priority for any Government must be, first and foremost, the protection of the public. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the overriding priority of this Government—it is the protection of the public, which is best secured by holding prisoners in safe and decent conditions and addressing the underlying causes of their offending. About that, we are all agreed. That should underpin the vision that any Government have for their Prison Service. We will be judged on the extent to which we have met the objectives that we have set ourselves in that regard.
We should consider what has been achieved. The present Opposition have rightly and understandably fallen into the trap, because they are doing what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) castigated the House for doing in March 1997, when she referred to the
endless catalogue of damnation by the Opposition, who do nothing but point to the bad news."—[Official Report, 20 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 1067.]
She is now doing exactly the same.
Let us stand back and examine what has been achieved. There have been improvements in security. There were 232 escapes from prison in 1992–93, on the Conservatives' watch, compared with 11 escapes in this financial year—232 to 11. We are entitled to be proud of our record. The right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Buckingham talked about the importance of constructive activity in prisons. We are addressing the causes of offending through offending behaviour programmes—we cannot be any more constructive than that. Total completions of such courses are up 240 per cent. from 1,373 in 1996–97 to 4,664 last year. [Interruption.] The Tories do not like hearing the good news, but they are going to hear it whether they like it or not. [Interruption.]

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has a right to reply.

Mr. Boateng: As for education in prisons, more than 32,000 full qualifications have been achieved in prisons since April 2000. The number of teaching hours increased by 10 per cent. The Government need no lessons from the Opposition on the importance of ensuring that prisoners work. The turnover from prison industries and farms in 1999–2000 was the highest ever at £53 million—up from £51.4 million in 1996–97. Judge us by the turnover from industry and farms, because it is up.
On sales of products, the right hon. Lady went on about socks, but they are given away, so let us consider what is sold. Sales of products from prison industries and farms to external customers rose from £6.7 million in 1996–97 to £10.45 million in 1999–2000. That is the difference between Conservative rhetoric and the Labour


party in government delivering work and industries in prisons. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham will have his chance in due course.
I want to examine the serious points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). They addressed two crucial issues. Rehabilitation is vital, and must be at the heart of what we are trying to do in prisons. My hon. Friend referred to the work in Usk. Rehabilitation of prisoners must lead to an understanding of the impact of their crime on their victims. We are addressing that in the work taking place in prisons. We are getting prisoners to see the harm that they have done to their victims and to confront what in their conduct has caused so much trouble and misery to others. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Buckingham saying from a sedentary position that this has been going on for years. We should compare the Government's record with what our Conservative predecessors achieved. We are achieving change and giving prisoners the opportunity to change their lives, whereas the Conservatives consistently failed to do that.

Mr. Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No.
We are making the important link between what goes on in prisons and what goes on in the community. The right hon. Member for Fareham, in a serious and considered speech, referred to the importance of ensuring that we address not only the issue of work in prisons, but the link with work outside prisons. The charity that he chairs does sterling work in that regard. We are now trying to build on the work of the voluntary sector to enable voluntary institutions to work more closely with prisons and to establish real links between prisons and the community.

Mr. Garnier: On the subject of those links, I was informed by the director of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders at a JSB conference on Saturday that 50 per cent. of those leaving young offender institutions do not know where they are going to sleep on their first night of freedom. What is the Minister doing about that?

Mr. Boateng: I was in Pentonville prison just a few weeks ago to launch a new project. NACRO and the housing associations are involved in that work. We want to ensure that before prisoners leave an institution they have been given advice on benefits and their housing needs have been examined, so that they do not go out into the wider world without certainty of a roof over their heads and the means to pay for it.
Serious resettlement issues need to be addressed. The Prime Minister has launched his initiative from the social exclusion unit to ensure that we get the policy right. There are no easy solutions: glib answers are not enough. The problem requires hard work and effort. The director general is bringing pressure to bear on the Prison Service to improve management. As our amendment points out, there are discrepancies in what can be achieved with the same resources between one institution to another. We were given examples of such discrepancies in the debate.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey described his visit to Durham, deals with some difficult, damaged and distressed prisoners. All the evidence shows that when the national health service works alongside prison health care and prison officers are able to train and obtain officially recognised NHS accredited qualifications—which we have enabled them to do—we better focus resources on the needs of individual prisons. That helps better to protect the public, because it ensures that the mental health and other health needs of prisoners have been assessed before they leave prison, and they are more likely to maintain their links with the NHS and so are less likely to offend.
This is about management and building partnerships between the NHS and the Prison Service, utilising the voluntary sector. Importantly, as we have shown in the four years in which we have had the stewardship of the Prison Service, as a result of those partnerships we have improved the conditions of many people in prison, and we have begun to address the issues that were neglected for so long by the Conservatives.

Mr. Bruce: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has visited a number of the prison establishments on Portland. Has he examined the change in regime at Portland young offender institution, which seems to have caused more problems than it has solved?

Mr. Boateng: Indeed, I have examined the change in regime, and with the help of the youth justice board we are improving conditions in Portland. Any objective examination of that institution will show that to be the case.
This issue is about investment, management, partnership and, above all, avoiding the glib strictures that characterised the Opposition throughout their stewardship of the Prison Service. We are working hard to improve management, we are better focusing resources and we are improving conditions in all our prisons. That is what the Government have achieved, and what the Conservatives failed to achieve.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 248.

Division No. 114]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Allan, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Amess, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Burnett, Jhon


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burstow, Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butterfill, Jhon


Baldry, Tony
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Beith, Rt Hon A J



Bercow, Jhon
Cash, William


Beresford, Sir Paul
Capman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Blunt, Crispin



Boswell, Tim
Chidgey, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Chope, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Brady, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Brake, Tom



Brand, Dr Peter
Collins, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Breed, Colin
Cotter, Brian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cran, James






Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Madel, Sir David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Duncan, Alan
Mates, Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Evans, Nigel
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Faber, David
Michie Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fabricant, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Feam, Ronnie
Oaten, Mark


Flight, Howard
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbuty)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Öpik, Lembit


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ottaway, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Page, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gidley, Sandra
Pickles, Eric


Gill, Christopher
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David


Gray, James
Randall, John


Green, Damian
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John
Rendel, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hammond, Philip
Ruffley, David


Hancock, Mike
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Harris, Dr Evan
St Aubyn, Nick


Harvey, Nick
Sanders Adrian


Hawkins, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayes, John
Shepherd, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Soames, Nicholas


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spring, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Steen, Anthony


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Streeter, Gary


Hunter, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Swayne, Desmond


Johnson Smith,
Syms, Robert


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Typsell, Sir Peter


Keetch, Paul
Taylor, Jhon M (Solihull)


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Key, Robert
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Townend, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Trend, Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tyler, Paul


Kirkwood, Archy
Viggers, Peter


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Walter, Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Waterson, Nigel


Lansley, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Letwin, Oliver
Whittingdale, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lidington, David
Wilkinson, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Willetts, David


Livsey, Richard
Willis, Phil


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Loughton, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Luff, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


MacGregor, Rt Hon John



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
and


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atkins, Charlotte


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Banks, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


(Swansea E)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F





Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Best, Harold
Grocott, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Blackman, Liz
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Healey, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hendrick, Mark


Bradshaw, Ben
Hepburn, Stephen


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Heppell, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hill, Keith


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hinchliffe, David


Browne, Desmond
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Buck, Ms Karen
Hood, Jimmy


Burgon, Colin
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hopkins, Kelvin


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Howells, Dr Kim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cann, Jamie
Humble, Mrs Joan


Caton, Martin
Illsley, Eric


Cawsey, Ian
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Clelland, David



Coaker, Vernon
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cohen, Harry
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Coleman, Iain
Joyce, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Keeble, Ms Sally


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Corston, Jean
Kemp, Fraser


Cousins, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cox, Tom
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Lammy, David


Cummings, John
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Laxton, Bob


(Copeland)
Lepper, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Leslie, Christopher


Dalyell, Tam
Levitt, Tom


Darvill, Keith
Linton, Martin


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Love, Andrew


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
McDonagh, Siobhain


(B'ham Hodge H)
Macdonald, Calum


Denham, Rt Hon John
McDonnell, John


Dobbin, Jim
McFall, John


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Donohoe, Brian H
McIsaac, Shona


Doran, Frank
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacShane, Denis


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McWalter, Tony


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McWilliam, John


Edwards, Huw
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Efford, Clive
Mallaber, Judy


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Ennis, Jeff
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, David (Shetteston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Martlew, Eric


Flint, Caroline
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Follett, Barbara
Merron, Gillian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Moffatt, Laura



Godsiff, Roger
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moran, Ms Margaret






Mullin, Chris
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Snaps, Peter


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Squire, Ms Rachel


Olner, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickthall, Colin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pike, Peter L
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prosser, Gwyn
Tipping, Paddy


Purchase, Ken
Trickett, Jon


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Truswell, Paul


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Tynan, Bill



Ward, Ms Claire


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wareing, Robert N


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Salter, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Sarwar, Mohammad
Winnick, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wood, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Woodward, Shaun


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Woolas, Phil


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wray, James


Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House supports the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make prisons work better to reduce reoffending and thus cut crime; welcomes the improved investment in the Service, and the improved performance of the Service in terms of security, literacy and numeracy, offender behaviour programmes, the reduction in drug taking and in under-18 regimes; offers its gratitude to staff and the many volunteers attached to prisons; but notes the significant and unacceptable variation in the effectiveness of different Prison Service establishments as highlighted by the Director General and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, and endorses the measures being put in place to secure higher and more consistent standards across establishments.

"Shifting the Balance"

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I inform hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the First Report of Session 1999–2000 from the Liaison Committee, Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC300, provides the right basis for the further development of the Select Committee system as a means of increasing the scrutiny and accountability of Government; and invites the Liaison Committee and the Government to bring forward the necessary Standing Orders for detailed consideration by the House.
The motion has been tabled in the names of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, of me as shadow Leader of the House, of three Select Committee Chairmen and of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
The debate is unusual for two reasons. First, the Conservative party has been concerned that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been denied the opportunity to vote on the substantive motion on the Liaison Committee report, which seeks to shift the balance of power from the Executive, especially from the party Whips, to democratically elected Members who are not part of the Executive.
Secondly, the motion is not party political. Its wording comes from the second Liaison Committee report of 20 July 2000: it appears in the recommendation in paragraph 76. During business questions last Thursday, the Leader of the House said:
Of course it is for the Opposition to determine topics for debate on Opposition days, and it is for the country to judge whether the Opposition's priorities reflect public concern."—[Official Report, 8 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 1075.]
I suspect that tonight's debate is not necessarily the subject on which many people outside the House will be focused, but it is of great importance to the democratic rights of the people who represent them: Members of the House.
It is surprising that the Leader of the House should have said that because, in May 1997, when things could only get better, the Government said in their manifesto:
We believe the House of Commons is in need of modernisation and we will ask the House to establish a special Select Committee to review its procedures.
There was no asking. I and other Conservative Members believe that the Committee that was established by the Government undermines the role of the Leader of the House.
A Conservative Government will expect three things. First, we will expect the Leader of the House to reflect the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of House matters and Standing Orders. Secondly, we will expect a genuinely free vote on such a motion—not just lip service, but an opportunity for hon. Members to exercise a vote on House matters such as the Liaison Committee report.
At last week's business questions, the Leader of the House pointed out to me the vagaries of the free vote. She said less than a week ago:
I point out that not all her colleagues will enter the Lobby to support the report if they are given a free vote.—[Official Report, 8 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 1071.]
Let me say immediately that I not only accept but respect that. That is what the Leader of the House or shadow Leader of the House is expected to recognise.
Thirdly, under a Conservative Government, a Conservative Leader of the House will respect Back Benchers. It was a Conservative Government who introduced Select Committees, and it is a Conservative Opposition who are giving the House the opportunity to vote today. After the next general election, it will be a Conservative Government who will shift the balance.
I do not intend again to go through all of the Liaison Committee report, which we debated on the Adjournment on 9 November 2000. The report is the considered view of no fewer than 33 hon. Members, from all parties, many of whom are eminent Chairmen of Select Committees. Their views are very clearly stated and have already been debated by the House.

Mr. John Healey: The hon. Lady has just told us that 33 very senior Members support the report. Does she accept that, when the Liaison Committee considered the report, only 22 of the 33 Chairmen were present? Is she saying that the report is fully supported—to a man and to a woman—by the 11 Chairmen who were not there and did not vote on it?

Mrs. Browning: I am not aware of a minority report. The usual procedure of Select Committees is that, when there are clear dissenting voices, those whose names are not listed as supporters of the report issue a minority report stating their views. Conservative Members on the Modernisation Committee have done precisely that in this Parliament. Although I realise that the hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member, I hope that he will recognise that those Members had every opportunity to dissent from the report, had they wished to do so.
On 11 May 2000, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) drew to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that he had 203 signatures for his early-day motion 476, which stated:
[That this House warmly welcomes the first report of the Liaison Committee, published on 2nd March, which observes that the membership or select committees is effectively under the control of the Whips and that this has led on occasion to long delays in setting up committees at the start of a parliament and in replacing members thereafter and that members have been kept off committees because of their views; agrees that this is wrong in principle; and believes the implementation of the report's recommendations would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive to the positive benefit of both.]

Mr. John Redwood: I am glad that my hon. Friend has already reached the subject of the Whips. Has she noticed that the Government Whip on duty has twice scoffed at her remarks—when she said that we are debating not a party political matter but a House of Commons matter, and when she said that the House

would be treated with more courtesy by a different Government? Will she bear it in mind that that is why Whips are not suited to making those appointments?

Mrs. Browning: The very reason that we are having this debate—[Interruption.] Regardless of which party is in office, the system in this place has to change and become more democratic.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: Yes, but I want to make it clear that I do not intend to give way many times. As the hon. Lady will know, I usually give way frequently. As today's debate is for Back Benchers, I shall say what I have to say and then give hon. Members an opportunity to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.

Mrs. Fitzsimons: In the light of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), does the hon. Lady appreciate the incredulity of some new Labour Members when listening to her remarks? Although Conservative Members had 18 years in government to make those changes, it is only now that they are in opposition that, suddenly, they allegedly see the light.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady was rather self-effacing by saying that she is a new Member, which she is. I remind her that it was a Conservative Government, under the great Margaret Thatcher, who established Select Committees in 1979.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The hon. Lady should be a little more accurate. She might be right about the structure of departmental Select Committees, but they go back much further than that.

Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady is still in the same mood as she was in last Thursday. I hope that, by the end of today's debate, she will recognise the importance of Select Committees, and the fact that the previous Conservative Government demonstrated that we wanted to make them more accountable to ensure that hon. Members can use the Select Committee structure to call the Executive to account.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: As it is the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous member of various Select Committees, I shall give way just once more.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady talks about making Select Committees more accountable, but does she remember what happened to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? He was Chairman of the Health Committee, but the previous Tory Government removed him because he objected to Government policy. How can she make such a speech when her party is riddled with hypocrisy on these matters?

Mrs. Browning: On the contrary, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has signed


today's motion. I have made it very clear that I do not care which party is in office, but I want democratic change to the way in which Whips and the Executive control Committees of the House. [Interruption.] That is the whole purpose of this debate.
The Government have been pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially by the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), to allow the House to have a vote on this very important report.
The Government's response to the Liaison Committee report was very critical. They had clearly not spent much time on it. Indeed, on the Cabinet Office press release, the Liaison Committee itself was prompted to say that
its description of the contents and effect of the Government Reply was remarkably selective … this was presentation, but not of a type which the Government should employ in its relations with Parliament.
If today's debate is about anything, it is about the relationship between the Executive and Parliament.
The hon. Member for Thurrock has been quite assiduous in raising the issue. One sensed his frustration, however, at his not being given a vote on the report. Earlier, I heard the Government Whip accuse me of duplicity. Perhaps he will listen to the words of the hon. Member for Thurrock. Last year, in a question to the Leader of the House, he said:
Has my right hon. Friend heard the cruel and callous rumour, which is full of calumny, that the Government might try to kick into touch any consideration in Parliament of the Liaison Committee's report 'Shifting the Balance'? Can she give the House an assurance that, despite the fact that there are varying views on the report's contents and recommendations, the Government intend to bring the matter to a head and allow hon. Members a free vote..?"—[Official Report, 25 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 897.]
Later, when I deal with the matter of a free vote, we shall see where the duplicity lies.
As I said, I do not intend to deal again with all the contents of the Liaison Committee report, which we debated on 9 November 2000. Despite the overwhelming response of hon. Members on both sides of the House to today's debate and vote, we did not receive an assurance that there will be a free vote. Although the wording of our motion is not party political, Labour Members will still not be allowed a free vote on it. The wording has been presented to the House by members of the Liaison Committee, on which all parties are represented.
Today's debate should send warning signals that although the Prime Minister says that there will be a free vote the Government will twist and turn to deny one. Is he not the same Prime Minister who has promised the people of the United Kingdom a free vote on keeping their own currency?
Last July, in an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister claimed on the Floor of the House—as hon. Members have reminded the Leader of the House on many occasions—that there would be a free vote on the report. However, the Government have taken every opportunity to ensure that hon. Members are denied the opportunity to exercise that right.
Fortuitously, earlier today, on a ledge in the House, I noticed a bright pink piece of paper showing this week's Labour Whip. I notice that, far from having a free vote tonight, Labour Members are subject to a three-line Whip at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: It is an Opposition day.

Mrs. Browning: Interestingly, the Whip on duty says more from a sedentary position to defend the Whips Office and the Executive, than I have heard a Whip say in many previous debates.
Conservative Members expect the Prime Minister's word to be his bond. As the Whip has pointed out, this is an Opposition day debate, so the Prime Minister's promise to hon. Members does not count any more. When the Prime Minister said that there would be a free vote, he did not mean on an Opposition day. That was not pointed out last summer. That promise does not count today, even though the motion is not an Opposition motion but one from the Liaison Committee. The Prime Minister's word does not hold good.
That begs the question, when does this man's word ever hold good? I hope that not only hon. Members but people outside will learn the lesson. We have seen how the Government have twisted and turned to deny their Back Benchers a free vote. How much easier will it be to twist and turn to deny the people of this country a free vote when it matters?
Is not this the Government who, under the chairmanship of a Cabinet Minister, forced changes to the Standing Orders of the House under the guise of modernisation? Is not this the Government who espouse the philosophy of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and Mr. Alastair Campbell—that the days of democratic representation are coming to an end? Is not this the Government who hold their own Back Benchers in contempt, including those who hold office as Select Committee Chairmen? Is it not time for a Conservative Government to restore democracy to the Benches of this House?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes the First Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC300, and the Government response thereto, Cm 4737; considers that the Select Committee system has proved its worth as a means of increasing the scrutiny and accountability of Government, endorsing in particular the Liaison Committee's judgment of the value of Select Committees (in particular paragraphs 4, 5 and 24 of the Committee's First Report); commends the initiatives already taken by the Government and by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the accountability of Ministers to Parliament, including the provision in Westminster Hall of the opportunity for some 200 extra back bench debates each Session, and over 20 debates on Select Committee reports; but does not believe that concentrating patronage in the hands of three senior Members of the House would increase the transparency or effectiveness of the Committee system.".
The Opposition motion invites the House to agree that the Liaison Committee report should form the basis of changes in the way in which the House approaches its


Select Committee work. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, this is the second opportunity the House has had to discuss these issues: the first was a debate on the Adjournment held last November to give the House a preliminary opportunity to examine the report and consider its implications. Unfortunately, by the time that debate took place, the Leader of the Opposition had already committed his party, as a party, to accepting the report. He seemed to do so on the grounds—here I paraphrase—that the Government exercise unprecedentedly large power and so must face unprecedented restrictions on that power: restrictions never placed on any Conservative Government.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Tonight I have a free vote, as printed on the Whip issued by the shadow Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). I do not believe that that is true of Labour Members. Given that the terms of the motion are precisely those issued by the Liaison Committee, should that not be the case if the Prime Minister's word is to be his bond?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place at business questions on Thursday, and he will have heard that question put to me repeatedly. He will also have heard my answer: this is Opposition business, not House business, and Opposition business is whipped.

Mr. James Paice: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If it is on the same point, I will not. I can come back to it later if the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I want to make a little progress.
I shall come in a moment to the substance of the report and its proposals, but first I want to dispose of the canard that in some way the Government are unprecedentedly abusing power and so must be unprecedentedly restrained. There are some things that are unprecedented about this Parliament; one is that, sadly, so few Members on the Conservative Benches have any experience whatsoever of Opposition.
When that is coupled with a collective bout of total amnesia about the record of past Conservative Governments, it leads to the repetition of a series of claims levelled without reference to the facts—claims about the size of the Government's programme, the length of recesses and the number of guillotines. Claims are made about all manner of House business, which are all claimed to be unprecedented when, in fact, none of them are.

Mr. John Bercow: Is.

Mrs. Beckett: All right, "is"— if the hon. Gentleman wants to be picky about the grammar.
One of the interesting aspects of recent genuinely thought-provoking debates on these issues has been the assertion by Opposition Members that we should return to a time when the Government did not set the agenda for the House. When challenged, most admit that such a time has never existed and that what they demand today are fetters on us that were never placed on them. To be fair, in November, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford

(Mr. Wells) did identify a golden age when, he claimed, Parliament was truly sovereign. It was apparently during the Cromwellian period, some 350 or so years ago. I am no historian but I presume that that was before Cromwell just dismissed a Parliament. It was certainly before any of us would even have had the vote, which rather dampens my enthusiasm for the parallel.
Let us be perfectly clear: the proposals contained in the Liaison Committee report are certainly interesting, but they are not modest, they are not simple and they do not return us to anything at all. They are profound, they are complex and they carry the potential for a substantial change to our constitution; and, far from taking us back to a lost idyll, they take us forward into completely uncharted waters.
The proposals seem to me to fall into four broad categories. There are those that are already within the power of the Committees themselves or of the Liaison Committee. Many relate to best practice and, although the Government are sympathetic to them, they do not require us to act. Where they impact on Government, such as in the review of Select Committee recommendations, we have issued guidance to ensure that Government Departments co-operate.
There are uncontroversial suggestions that the Government are happy to agree for better practice on our part—suggestions for more effective dialogue between Government and Committees, for how we carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, for joint working or for secondments. Again, here we have common ground.
There are then two other sets of proposals where there are differing views: first on how members of Select Committees are appointed and, secondly, on expanding in a number of ways the roles the Committees exercise. It is in these two areas that we see some proposals that are without precedent.
The acceptance has always been hitherto that the role of Select Committees is to scrutinise the work of the Government, yet in the report we begin to see proposals to substitute their judgment for that of the Government. In this Parliament, members of the Executive must be Members of Parliament. Their accountability for what they do as Ministers is direct and personal, in their capacity as members of this body. They are not apart, or separate.
However, the report proposes, for example, that by statute we set up confirmation hearings for public appointments. Where such appointments are made by Ministers, accountability to the House is through the Minister, not the individual; the appointee is responsible to the Minister and the Minister to the House. It is not clear, at least to me, what the line of responsibility will be if a Committee has a statutory role.
The report suggests a substantial expansion of control over the agenda of the House; for example, extra days on the Floor for Select Committee debates, a takeover of the Tuesday slot for ten-minute Bills now available to Back-Bench Members—thus relegating Back Benchers to Mondays—debates on Select Committee reports to be on substantive motions; and the ability to change the context for other debates by deciding to tag to them specific Select Committee reports. That includes debates initiated by the Opposition or by Back Benchers in Westminster Hall. All that is in the context of the call for a more specific career


structure and role for members of Select Committees—a role intended to carry with it greater powers and interest than that of an ordinary Back Bencher.

Mr. Bercow: I would like to probe the right hon. Lady on the Liaison Committee's recommendations on the appointment of members of Select Committees.
Whips are like sewers—they perform an important function, but they should not be idolised. In inviting the right hon. Lady to stand back, just for a moment, from her usual role of democratic centralist, which she performs in exemplary fashion, I ask her to say why members of Select Committees should not be appointed by independent persons rather than by the agents of patronage.

Mrs. Beckett: With deep respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), I have never heard of anybody idolising the Whips. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is timely, but perhaps marginally premature, as I was about to come to precisely that point. I refer to the fourth area, on which I have the greatest reservations about the effect, as opposed to the intention, of the report's proposals.
Let me first do what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton did not, and remind the House of what is proposed. Three Members, said to be characterised by their seniority and impartiality, shall, at the outset of a Parliament, be chosen by the House. Those three will then appoint every member of every Select Committee. They will seek self-nomination, as we do in the Labour party. The hon. Lady was silent on the procedures followed in her party. They will have regard to experience and to interest, but they will choose the names that they put to the House.
From those so chosen, each Committee will elect its Chair and they will join the initial three as the Select Committee Panel. A smaller group from among them will form an executive of that Committee. They may seek more detailed day-to-day control of the whole budget for Committees, not just of travel. They will administer discipline, appoint replacements to fill vacancies, and so on. The Chair of the Committee will, after the Queen's Speech, advise the Government what legislation he or she feels the House should see in draft, thereby exercising an influence on the timing and hence the content of the legislative programme.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: On the selection of the members of Committees, the panel would suggest names in a more meaningful way than at present, when the Whips decide. It would be for the House to decide to accept any recommendation. I suggest that that acceptance would be much more meaningful because Members could vote against it. They would be voting not against the Government but the panel, however it was constituted.
Most important, is it not wrong for the Government to decide the members of Committees that are set up to criticise and examine the Government? Should the Government decide the appointments of people who are to scrutinise the work of the Government?

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend knows that I hold him in great respect and esteem.

Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady was born there.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right: I was born in my right hon. Friend's constituency, of which he is a distinguished servant. However, I say to him with the greatest respect that, certainly in our party, the Whips do not decide who is appointed. I cannot speak for the Conservative party, and I notice that nobody does on this point.
I take my right hon. Friend's point that it would be wrong for the Government to appoint those who scrutinise them. The Government do not appoint; they do not appoint, for one thing, members from other parties. They do not even appoint members from their own party.
Our procedures are imperfect, of course; they are open to question, of course. However, it is open to members of our party to self-nominate, not least when there are vacancies, but even at the outset of a Parliament. Those names go to the parliamentary Labour party and have to be agreed within that party. Only then are they put forward by the Whips. It is not a matter of the Whips choosing the names that they will put forward—at least, not in our party.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman is about to tell me how the Conservative party appoints members of Select Committees, I shall be most interested to hear from him.

Mr. Grieve: I seek some clarification from the right hon. Lady. She told us a moment ago that this was a serious constitutional change, yet in her answer to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), it became apparent that it was a minor change of procedure, with no constitutional significance. Will she explain why she said earlier that it was a major constitutional change?

Mrs. Beckett: Indeed. First, I think that the hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood me. The constitutional change to which I referred is twofold, but I accept that the most significant part is that to which I have already referred—substituting the judgment of Select Committees for that of the Government rather than their scrutinising matters. However, I do not regard the changes proposed to the way in which we handle the appointment of membership as a matter of triviality. I notice that, yet again, the hon. Gentleman failed to say how Select Committee members are appointed in the Conservative party. Given that we had this discussion in November, and everybody waxed very eloquent about the virtues of the proposed system, they have had plenty of time to change the system in the Conservative party. I take it from the silence on the Conservative Benches that they have not done so, which casts an interesting light on the sincerity with which the motion has been moved.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I thank my right hon. Friend for reiterating what is in the Liaison Committee report about the way in which the Chairman of Committees and the two Deputy Chairmen


would be appointed. Can she also clarify whether the two Deputy Chairmen would be allowed to be Chairmen of Select Committees?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an incestuous aspect to the relationship? To be elected as Chairman and Deputy Chairmen, candidates would presumably have to solicit the votes of Back-Bench Members of Parliament who would be likely to ask what they would get in return. Far from independence, there would be a network that would favour Members of Parliament who had been present in the previous Parliament rather than those, of any party, who had only just arrived and were not involved in the highly developed networks among existing Back Benchers.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. One aspect of the proposals on which I had not previously focused is the fact that the three who were elected would all chair Select Committees and presumably, at a later point, it would be decided which Select Committee they would chair.
I repeat that I genuinely hold my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne in affection and esteem, and I am sorry that he is retiring from the House. We shall miss him. I know that he will not take it personally when I make two observations on these proposals. First, not even into his hands would I casually give the proposed powers. Secondly, as he is retiring, this may be the last occasion on which, if the original motion were carried today, Members might feel wholly free to challenge the exercise of power by the Chair of the Liaison Committee.
A couple of days after his election, Mr. Speaker, with the kindly smile with which we are all becoming so familiar, assured an hon. Gentleman who raised an issue that he was sure that he intended no offence. "Everybody", he said, "likes the Speaker." With regard to these proposals, everybody will like the Chair of the Liaison Committee and his or her two senior colleagues. They will be beset by friends. They will control membership—choosing, if they wish, a pro or anti-European majority for the Treasury or Foreign Affairs Committees. They will have the capacity to punish non-attendance. They will control travel, they could control funding, they could control staffing, and they could control time in the House as well as in Westminster Hall. As in the United States, seniority would bring with it not only respect but real and lasting power.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, such a structure would require information to assist in reaching a judgment on members. There will be channels of information; there will be channels of advice. It is said—my right hon. Friend repeated it—that the system would be more transparent than it is now because the relevant motions would come before the House and could be amended, but those are the procedures in place now. It does not happen often, but amendments can be moved, and have been during the time in which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have been in the House.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In 1992, I was appointed by patronage to be a member of the Select Committee on Transport. By a revolt against pressure by the Labour Whips, Labour Members supported the late Robert Adley as Chairman of that Committee—and how

right we were. The point is that undue pressure was placed on me and my colleagues to abide by a grubby carve-up between those on the two Front Benches. The power that my right hon. Friend refers to would be power for Parliament, taken away from the choreographers of the Opposition and the Government, who are both to blame and both the same in this matter.

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, who knows that I have genuine respect for him, he has just made a point opposite to that which he intended. As he has just said, it is, within the structures that exist at present, open to the House to overturn any recommendation from any quarter. Given that Robert Adley, a most distinguished and skilled Member of Parliament, was a Conservative, it was presumably the Conservative party—the born-again devotees of democracy sitting opposite me tonight—who wanted Mr. Adley's nomination to be opposed.

Mr. Bercow: We were not all here then.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; some of them were not here.

Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must press on.

Mr. Cash: The right hon. Lady has given way twice to those on her own side.

Mrs. Beckett: How shocking.

Mr. Cash: Twice.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is being a little silly given the well-known views of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would my right hon. Friend care to make it a third time?

Mrs. Beckett: How can I resist?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Many of us want reform, as my right hon. Friend knows. We want to strengthen the powers of Select Committees and to give them a greater element of independence. However, who will measure the basis of qualifications and suitability? Who will measure work commitment? Are the three people to take it on themselves to decide such critically important issues? What knowledge would they have? The recommendation is nonsense, and the Select Committee should start over. The objective is excellent, but the route is rubbish.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and he is well known not as a born-again devotee of either democracy or the rights of Back Benchers, but as one who has pursued both assiduously for a long time.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cash: I am deeply grateful to the Leader of the House, after all that.
The right hon. Lady said that it would be possible for a person to be chosen to chair a Committee or be a member of a Committee on the basis of pro or anti-European views. Although I make the point with humour, I intend it seriously when I ask how, during the whole time since the European Communities Act 1972 was enacted, chairmanship of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny—previously the European Legislation Committee—was always in the possession of the Opposition until it came into the possession of the present Government? Why and how did that happen? I mean no disrespect to the present Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee by saying that, whether the Government, the Whips or someone else decided that that should happen, it undermined scrutiny by the House.

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman said, no one disputes the way in which the European Committees operate, and no suggestion has been made that scrutiny has diminished. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one change made by my Government is a substantial expansion of the role of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny. There is no longer one Committee, but three. [Interruption.] With respect to Opposition Members, that is the point. Under the previous Government, which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) supported, many areas of European business were excluded from scrutiny by the House. In particular, the by no means insignificant area of legislation initiated by the Commission and the proposals that came from the pillars of, say, justice and home affairs, were all excluded from scrutiny by our Committees. This Government brought those matters under scrutiny.

Mr. Richard Page: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make progress. I have given way a great deal, and, like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I do not want to take too much time so that there is time for Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Bercow: But we are enjoying it.

Mrs. Beckett: I am delighted to hear it.
I tell the House bluntly that, whatever claims may be made for the new system, within a short period—perhaps as little as six weeks—of such a structure being set up, no one who has failed to achieve the appointment that he or she sought will believe in its transparency. All the talk will be of who is friendly with whom, and of who has the ear of the Chair. Before anybody claims that those arguments are heard now—I fully accept that that is so—let me remind the House of one simple, and perhaps to some unpalatable, fact. Whips come and go. Chief Whips come and go. Prime Ministers come and go. All of them come and go with much greater frequency than Chairs of the Liaison Committee.
It is only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is retiring that we shall shortly have a third Chairman of the Liaison Committee—if he were staying on, I doubt that anyone would imagine but that he

would hold the position for another 10 years. During the terms of office of the last two people to chair the Committee, we have had eight holders of the office of Government Chief Whip.

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect, I must get on.
That brings me back to how the three original wise persons will be chosen. They will be chosen by a motion before the House. It appears in the report to be assumed that three suitable candidates will emerge, and that the motion or motions will be put and can be amended. I surely cannot be the only person who notices a strong resemblance to the method by which we have in the past chosen a Speaker.
No doubt I shall be told that that is just a basis, and that each major party could choose its own candidate and would choose an acceptable person. However, I mean no discourtesy to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I am sorry that he is, uncharacteristically, not in his place; I have considerable respect for his skills as a parliamentarian—when I say that it is by no means inconceivable that a majority in his party might regard him as a suitable candidate to be one of the three wise persons; or his party might consider some other senior Member, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect, no. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his points later.
I understand and sympathise with the wish—I am at one on this with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—to see the work of Select Committees being esteemed and influential. I remind the House of the improvements that the Government have already made. As I have already said to the hon. Member for Stone, the remit of the Committees charged with scrutiny of EU business has been expanded, so that all business can be covered—no ifs, no buts, but a permanent change.
While the Liaison Committee was discussing the proposals in the report, and before it had had a chance to reflect on them, the Modernisation Committee was proposing extra sittings in Westminster Hall, and those have since been expanded still further. That is an experiment, but it is not the Government side that doubts the worth of the experiment. We believe that experiments have value and provide something on which we can build.

Mr. Page: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I will give way to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) because he has been standing for ever.

Mr. Page: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She has spent most of her speech addressing the issues in the Liaison Committee report and making it abundantly clear that she, on the Government's behalf, is opposed to the


report. Bearing in mind that she and the Prime Minister offered a free vote on the substance of the report, and given that the Government are not providing Labour Members with a free vote on that tonight, should we assume that the Government decide their position not on the content or substance of a motion, but according to who moves it?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman merely reiterates a point that has already been made. In my remarks tonight, I suggest to the House that the right course for us to follow is to continue and build on those experiments; they already give Select Committees greater power and more time.
I urge the House—not least some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—not to fall into the poll tax trap, with which Conservative Members will be painfully familiar: to make the leap from perceived flaws in what we do at present to the assumption that absolutely anything would be better, especially if that anything is described in terms as attractive as "independence" and "transparency".
Our Select Committee system enjoys justified respect. Let us strengthen it where we can by giving much greater time to the debate of its reports. To leave those reports languishing and undebated can only be much less effective. Let us see how we can build on the strengths of the system to contribute to pre or post-legislative scrutiny. Let us see how we can adapt its structures to cross-departmental working—sadly, the Liaison Committee report said little about that. However, let us not rush to bind the House to new processes and procedures whose consequences might be much more far-reaching than Conservative Members are likely to claim today.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Leader of the House had a case, she seriously overstated it. The suggestion that the Liaison Committee proposal is revolutionary and unprecedented is no more unprecedented than was the initial decision—taken more than 20 years ago—to set up Select Committees.
If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues had introduced the motion in a partisan spirit and a contentious manner, one might have had more sympathy for the right hon. Lady's knockabout reply. However, the motion is extremely serious; it relates to recommendations made by some of the most experienced parliamentarians among us—many of whom have held high Government office. Most of them have Front-Bench experience and are not unaware of the needs of the Executive.
In the stand that she has taken today in her attempt to control the House, the right hon. Lady reverts to the worst centralism. That runs right against much of the Government's constitutional programme during this Parliament. It could surely be said that the devolution of power from this place to Scotland and Wales was without precedent; but, in most quarters, it is regarded as a great success. The argument that something is unprecedented is not an argument against its weight.
The right hon. Lady seems to exaggerate when she suggests that the Liaison Committee's recommendations on how Select Committee members should be appointed would tend to substitute the judgment of Parliament for

that of the Government. That is not a necessary consequence of the recommendations. She overstates the constitutional doctrine when she suggests that the Government propose and that Parliament disposes—or that, inevitably, the Government must always have their way without regard to the views of Parliament.
Normally, the Government command majority support for their point of view. Party loyalties are strong in this place. However, on some occasions, it is helpful to the Executive to hear the voice of the Chamber and to hear the voice of Select Committees that have deliberated carefully on the matters under their scrutiny.
During the 35 years that I have served as a Member of the House, I recall several occasions when the House as a whole has voiced a view that modified that of Executive. For example, the report of the Roskill committee on the treatment of serious fraud cases proposed that certain matters should be decided in court by a judge and assessors instead of being dealt with by a jury trial. The then Government were minded to accept that recommendation and said so publicly. However, during a debate in the Chamber, 10 of the 11 Members who spoke were against the proposal, so the Government dropped it and it never resurfaced. That was not an attempt by Parliament to substitute its judgment for that of the Government; it was an attempt by Parliament to advise the Government as to how to proceed. That is what this place is about.
The difficulty with proffering advice in this place, however, is that so many of our debates are of a generalised nature. They may well conclude with the comments, "We have heard many points of view. Thank you all very much indeed. The Government will do what they intended to do in the first place." The attraction of the Select Committee system is that it contains the possibility of focusing debate sharply on issues of concern to Members of Parliament and to members of the public.
If we took the advice of the Liaison Committee that Select Committees should be allowed to put substantive motions to the House, we could even more effectively target debates and give the House a much clearer opportunity to express its views. Not only is that bound to be of direct assistance to Governments, by helping them to avoid traps that they may not have seen; it would also sustain the reputation of the House, which, as the Government not infrequently remind us, is in some disrepair.
Some of the issues considered in the Liaison Committee report were canvassed earlier in the debate. They are extremely modest proposals. One, which has not figured large in the debate so far, is that a half-hour debate should be held following the publication of a Select Committee report that has urgency and immediacy. Such reports should not be considered long after the event, but as soon as the findings have been published.
The right hon. Lady produces no significant argument of substance against that proposal. She suggests that, by moving ten-minute Bill debates from a Tuesday to a Monday, one is taking a shocking constitutional step. I cannot understand that at all. To downgrade Mondays rather than Tuesdays is a novel constitutional doctrine.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman may not have been able to be present when we last debated those issues—I do not criticise him for that. On that occasion,


I said rather more on my views on that aspect of the Liaison Committee's proposals. I do not want to be repetitious, but I make two brief points.
First, as the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware, half an hour on the Floor of the House in prime time is not at all insignificant. Half an hour of such time each week takes up time that could otherwise be occupied by a whole piece of Government legislation. That is not unimportant for Government business managers.
Secondly, prime time on a Tuesday afternoon is available to Back-Bench Members at present. Given that the report has so many references to strengthening the role of Back Benchers, it is not insignificant that it is they who will lose out if those debates are moved.

Mr. Maclennan: First, I did read what the right hon. Lady said and, even more importantly perhaps, I also read what she said in detailed response to the Liaison Committee's views on the subject, and I am bound to say that it was distinctly unpersuasive. She seemed to take the view, which she is repeating to an extent today, that half an hour of Government business is, ipso facto, of greater importance than the deliberations of a Select Committee. If we were talking about the procedure every day of the week in prime time, frankly, she might have a point, but half an hour on Tuesday? Her objection calls in question the peroration of her speech, in which she suggested that the Government are seriously interested in what Select Committees have to say in their reports.
As a former, long-serving member of the Public Accounts Committee, I believe it very important that such debates are held soon after the completion of the original inquiry. The problem with the annual Public Accounts Committee debate is that it is not so attached in time or immediate and, therefore, it does not receive hon. Members' focused attention; nor can it be so sharply pointed as the departmental Committee reports, because it suffers, too, from the defect of which I have already spoken—the one-day debate involving, to an extent, a tour d'horizon.
Acceptance of the proposals will give real substance to the Liaison Committee's recommendations and show the country that detailed matters of policy are being considered in a detailed and responsible fashion. That does not necessarily mean that the proposals are hostile to the Government's interests or necessarily adversarial in their approach; nor does it mean that the Minister will be required to give an instant response. If the issues raised are complex, it may be necessary to allow some time for proper consideration.
On the nomination of members, I am bound to say that a fair amount of humbug has been spoken by the Leader of the House about how they are chosen and the beauties of the present system. It appears to be quite plain that the Whips and the usual channels play a controlling part in those nominations. To some extent, the beans were spilled by the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Brigg and Cleethorpes, Mr. Michael Brown, who now writes in The Independent. In an article, he said:
I certainly recall, as a government whip, doing my utmost, when a new vacancy occurred on a select committee, to nominate only MPs who knew nothing about the subject and who simply wanted

to be 'helpful' to the government. I would even successfully persuade them, against their will, to go on a committee in which they had absolutely no interest. My desire, on behalf of my superiors, was simply to block far more effective and knowledgeable MPs. I have no reason to believe that Labour Government whips do not behave in precisely the same fashion.

Mrs. Beckett: With respect, that is a disgraceful assertion. I am happy to say that I have no knowledge of how the Conservative party chooses members of Select Committees—although I have a good idea—but such comments cast some light on Conservative Members' honesty in this debate. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware, there is a proper structure of nomination in the Labour party. That structure has to be approved by the parliamentary Labour party. Indeed, the parliamentary Labour party rules state:
For all Select Committees, the Chief Whip shall consult the Chair of the PLP, the Front-Bench Spokesperson if appropriate, the Chair of the appropriate Departmental Committee"—
the Back-Bench Committee—
and prepare from the records kept by the secretary … a list of names to go forward to the House, or the Committee of Selection, as appropriate.
The lists of suggested nominees should be placed before the PLP in good time before any decision is made by the Committee of Selection or Motion taken by the House.
Of course, it is in order for that to be referred back or amended. I simply tell the right hon. Gentleman that that procedure may not obtain in Liberal Democrat party or in the Conservative party, but why should we change the rules of the House because those parties' procedures are totally undemocratic?

Mr. Maclennan: I simply make two points in response to that somewhat lengthy riposte; its very length suggests that the right hon. Lady is a little sensitive on the point. First, the words that she quotes refer to the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesmen. That suggests an oppositionist attitude, which does not reflect the reality of the Labour party in government. No doubt, the person who decides who sits on the respective Select Committee is the very Cabinet Minister whose work will be examined after the event. She makes precisely the argument for not following the, procedure.

Mrs. Beckett: I simply say that it is perhaps time that the right hon. Gentleman ceased to make suggestions about the way in which the Labour party's structures work. What he says is totally incorrect. There is no question whatever of the Cabinet Minister of the day suggesting who should sit on Committees. Does he think that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) would be on a Select Committee if that were the case?

Mr. Maclennan: I am more interested in examining the constitutional procedures of the House than the internal affairs of the Labour party, but I was merely referring to what the right hon. Lady had said. She referred to the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesmen. If their selection does not involve Cabinet responsibility, perhaps we might invite her to tell us who is involved; we should be delighted to hear. Is the Whip answerable to the Cabinet Minister involved? Is she suggesting that that interposition in some way distances the appointee from the control of the Executive? The answer is fairly


clear to the House: the Government simply wish to ensure that such matters are managed by the party business managers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the hon. Gentleman is so sure of what he says are facts, why has there been a string of reports from Committees with Labour majorities, attacking Government policy during recent months? Last week, the Treasury Committee produced a critical report. A couple of weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum seekers was also critical of the Government. Labour-dominated Committees have repeatedly criticised the Government, so what is the problem?

Mr. Maclennan: Members of the Committee, when appointed, exercise a certain healthy, robust independence. Perhaps, in some cases, the Government are simply making assurance doubly sure by seeking to appoint their friends, or those whom they want to satisfy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: I had better make a little progress, as this is, to an extent, a Back-Bench debate.
One of the most attractive arguments in the Liaison Committee report is the notion that there should be a separate career for Members, which would be distinct from the route to high Executive office. That is what the report is most likely to result in if it is implemented, and the House ought to grasp that.
I very much regret that the Government have not yet given us the opportunity to vote on such matters in the normal way. It is unsatisfactory that such matters have been debated on an Opposition day, but I do not blame the Conservative party for that; it is the Leader of the House who has failed to take earlier opportunities to table substantive motions to reflect the wishes of the Liaison Committee. Indeed, in evidence to that Committee she said that those opportunities were likely to be provided in last year's spill-over period. That undertaking has not been met, which is why we are debating the matter tonight. Whatever the outcome of tonight's vote—I profoundly hope that the House does not simply split along party lines—these issues test the sincerity of the Government in seeking to modernise Parliament and make it more effective in its scrutiny and control of the Executive.
The House will have to return to these matters time and again. I hope that, before too long, the recommendations are accepted and that what the Government perceive to be revolutionary will be taken as the natural way for a modern legislature to proceed.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was right to draw attention to Norman St. John-Stevas and the epoch-making role that he played in bringing about the departmental Select Committees. The idea was put forward by John Mackintosh, who unfortunately died rather young, and David Marquand. Eventually, Norman St. John-Stevas was able to introduce them in the early years after a change of Administration.

That is the best time to act, and we might have been better placed if we had made further changes in the early years of this Administration.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons quite rightly said in The House magazine on 29 May last year that she would like to go down as a reforming Leader of the House. I hope that eventually she will. However, it saddens me to disagree with her, because she has a love and affection for Ashton-under-Lyne that equals mine, and I have admired her work greatly in the various roles that she has played.
I am sorry that the debate is taking place on an Opposition Supply day. By its very nature, it will be a party political debate and it would have been much better if the Government had tabled the substantive motion that we asked for again and again.
We are trying to show that Back Benchers have a role to play when they enter the House. However, many who come here have no role outside the House in the way they did when I first came here many years ago. They therefore try to find a role for themselves, and that is not easy. However, the Select Committee provides such a role; and it is a rewarding task to be able to go into the detail of policies in a way that it is not possible in the Chamber. One can discover all sorts of things that are not easy to discover here.
In particular, members of Select Committees can return to a question again and again until they receive an answer. I remember the best question I ever heard was asked in the Public Accounts Committee by the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Back in the mid-1960s, when I was one of the first members of the Committee, serving on it was not a very attractive job. In fact, its members were pressed men and women—and nearly all men—because the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee ran the show.
I became the Committee's Chairman because I wanted to ensure that the National Audit Office got off to a good start, and I limited my role. However, the NAO's existence enabled us to generate greater interest in the Committee's work and as, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross knows, I limited the speeches of members of the Committee to 15 minutes. They were shown a card to let them know when their time was up.
The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was pursuing a question under that system and was repeatedly being blocked by an astute civil servant. Finally, my right hon. Friend—the House knows his character so it will appreciate this point—banged the table and said, "I've only got one minute; I am going to get an answer. Yes or no?" "Yes", came the reply—my right hon. Friend had got his answer. The Select Committee system can provide answers. Committee members can become knowledgeable on the detail, and the House does not normally give one the chance to do that. We want to improve the system so that Members can obtain the answers and become much more knowledgeable.
All of the more than 600 reports produced by the Public Accounts Committee were unanimous. They were genuinely unanimous—not fudged. It is the task of a Select Committee to face the facts. Its members start off bound by their own political dogma, or whatever it may be. However, as time goes on, the Committee's Chairman must make sure that its members begin to respect each


other. That means that, when they look each other in the face, they must not resort to the dogma of political life but be determined to discover the facts. That produces something that is really worth while—politicians considering the facts and coming out with them in their reports.
As soon as a Select Committee report is published, there should be an input. That is why the idea of a half-hour debate is one good way—if not the only way—of providing such input. The Chairman would be able to present the report—five minutes is all he needs—and the Minister could take five minutes to give the Government's official reaction. That reaction very often appears in the press, but there is no reason why it cannot be given in the House. A few comments would be made and, although no decisions would be taken, the issues would be given an airing at a time of maximum interest.
The detail is what counts. The eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee considered a decline in the standards of probity in relation to regional health authorities in the west midlands and the Welsh Development Agency. We drew attention to that decline, but the then Prime Minister was not very enthusiastic about the report that we produced. However, he later became enthusiastic, because he realised the value of a Select Committee considering detail outside the Government machine. Civil servants are mired in Whitehall, but ordinary Members of the House, with their knowledge of their constituencies and their understanding of ordinary people, are able to examine the detail. As a result of their greater understanding, they are able to produce a valuable report that is different from the type of report that the Government machine would produce.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) introduced some good changes to the system—for example, confirmation hearings. Although they have no power, they mean that someone who is appointed by the Government has to come before a Select Committee and justify himself. That is a useful weapon in ensuring that minimum standards are maintained. In addition, weekends when the members of a Committee bond together are also enormously important. They mean that its members begin to respect each other. When they have respect for each other, they tend to have respect for the facts and the truth. That is another great advantage of the system.

Mr. Blunt: I, like almost every Member of the House, have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He is making a decent and courteous case for his Committee's reports. He put to the Leader of the House the words of Peter Riddell, a cheerleader of the Blairite project, who said in response to the first report of the right hon. Gentleman's that it was "arrogant, mendacious and contemptible". In putting this case so decently, is the right hon. Gentleman not frustrated that he is dealing with an "arrogant, mendacious and contemptible" Government?

Mr. Sheldon: I do not know about that, but it is important that Select Committees acquire such information in a different way from the Government machine.
If the Committees are going to act as outside bodies that gather facts and information and put their opinions in a concerted form, with Labour, Conservative and Liberal

Democrat Members reaching agreement, then their members must be free from Government interference. It is clearly wrong that the Government should choose Committee members whose purpose it is to examine the Government. My right hon. Friend is right; it is possible to deal with such issues in a less direct manner, but perception is important. There needs to be a greater remoteness from the Government machine.
The issue is not without importance. I hope that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will contribute to the debate. He was a distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee. As a result of his outspokenness, his party devised a system to debar hon. Members from spending more than two terms in post. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for four Parliaments and was pleased that the contagion did not spread from the Conservative Benches.
Labour Whips are not bad people, but they have a role that could be carried out by the House as a whole. Perhaps we need to consider the system in a different way. That is just an idea. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the crucial consideration is the objective, which must be that the House should detennine the composition of the Committees. There needs to be an alternative career for people who are not going to get into government. That is especially relevant when the Government have a large majority. I understand that hon. Members believe they are most fulfilled when they are invited to join the Government, even at a lowly level. I am sorry about that, because we lose some good people. However, hon. Members who stay as Back Benchers should have a means of influencing the way the country is run.
Select Committees will monitor the work that has been done. Every year the National Audit Office tells the PAC how far it has succeeded in influencing the change in Government procedure. We want Select Committees to participate in similar monitoring. I can see no real objection to the many changes that we are suggesting. They might need to be modified and perhaps different methods of approach should be considered, but they are all possible.

Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman says that modification might be necessary. Does he recognise that the motion suggests that both the Government and the Liaison Committee introduce proposals for discussion by the House? Even with the reservations that the Leader of the House expressed, that gives them the chance to work in partnership with the Committee to iron out some of the differences.

Mr. Sheldon: I have no objection to the wording of the motion, but the debate is taking place on an Opposition Supply day. Perhaps I have been in the House too long, but such days have a certain connotation for me. Although I shall not be able to vote for the motion, I shall not vote against it either. I hope that early in the next Parliament we will reconsider the issues in a more relaxed manner, so that we can manage to get closer to the Liaison Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Twenty years ago, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I went to China


together. When the general election comes, we will sail into the sunset together. That will be as much a pleasure as it is to follow him in the debate.
I have various interests to declare. I am a signatory of the motion and a member of the Liaison Committee. In light of the observations made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) about how people become members of the Committee, I should explain that I was a perfectly innocent and ordinary Back-Bench member of the Health Committee, minding my Ps and Qs, when I was put in an armlock by the Front Benches on both sides of the House and frogmarched into the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Not all of us get on a Committee by the processes that she described.
I was a member of the Norton commission and, once, a Whip. Without idolising me, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that I was the best pairing Whip he had ever experienced—[Interruption]—up to that moment. As the Leader of the House alluded to the number of people on the Conservative Benches who have been in opposition before, I should declare another novel interest: I was one of them. As she led with her chin, I recall when I won a place in that antique ballot for speaking on the Consolidated Fund in the middle of the night. She was Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science at the time, and dispatched her private secretary to ask me to withdraw from scrutinising the Executive at that inconvenient hour.
The Leader of the House's speech tonight leads me to recall the episode of Winston Churchill shooting at Blenheim. The gamekeeper said to him, "Mr. Churchill, that hare four fields away, at which you are taking aim, is really outside your range." Churchill replied, "I just wanted that small animal to feel that it had some part to play in our proceedings." A number of the targets that the right hon. Lady selected tonight were the same distance from the agenda of the motion as the hare was.
I spoke in the debate on 9 Noveinber, to which allusion has already been made. I shall quote the final sentence of my speech. The House will realise that my speech was foreshortened because it was the last before the wind-ups, and was therefore somewhat elliptical. I said:
I wanted to say something about the influence of the Whips on the composition of Select Committees, and specifically about the disappearance of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to be Mayor of London and the fact that he was not replaced by someone of comparable political views—the use of the Whips is extremely dangerous when it excludes people who could make a contribution to the Committee—but as we are pressed for time, I shall now sit down."—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 535.]
I am in the debt of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), because by securing this debate she has enabled me to say what I would have said if I had had slightly more time. The Clerk of the Liaison Committee, on which I serve, implied that he had the sense that I was participating in a serial story in a ladies' magazine, and that it would be necessary to wait for the next instalment.
The next instalment is what I would have said if I had had slightly longer. I want to dwell on the loss of only one member of the Select Committee: the hon. Member for Brent, East, who left to seek the mayoralty of London. I congratulate the Government Whips on having

appointed him. He added enormously to the Committee, because the nature of his views on Northern Ireland widened the spectrum of views on the Committee and gave much greater authority to the Committee's views. His appointment could be argued as proof that, as paragraph 9 of the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's first report says, the Government are not seeking to ensure
a docile set of Select Committees.
Four Labour Back Benchers have been appointed to the Select Committee since the hon. Gentleman left. I remark neutrally that, individually admirable though they have been, and of course they are ornaments of the Committee, none has replaced the hon. Gentleman and thus restored to the Committee the authority that he conferred on it. That is why I want the Whips' role to be removed.
The late Ward McAllister decreed that since only 400 guests could be accommodated in Mrs. Astor's ballroom, there were only 400 people in New York. Whatever the result of tonight's Division, let no one in the Government Whips Office imagine that, on a free vote, the result would be the same as will be secured tonight by the law of Mrs. Astor's ballroom. On free votes, and the Government's commitment to them, the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister remind me of the man who returned to a car park, where, in his absence, his car had been damaged, to find a note on his windscreen that read, "As I write this, there is a large crowd gathering around me. They imagine that I am writing down my name and address, but you and I know different, don't we?"
I offer the Leader of the House, through her deputy, the advice of Mark Twain:
Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest.
If we cannot have a free vote tonight, let us have one before the general election while the members of the Liaison Committee that made these proposals still sit in the House.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: I congratulate my fellow north-west MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, on his work and on restoring to the debate the tone that is needed for the discussion of the Committee's report. I agree with him that if Opposition Members wanted Labour Members to enter into the debate, they should not have tabled it as an Opposition Supply day debate, with all the connotations that a Member of his lineage has identified.

Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fitzsimons: No, I shall make some progress first.
My right hon. Friend has been prayed in aid as someone who has given many years of service to the House. He has noted that if more genuine comments were wanted rather than partisan politics, the issue should not have been handled as it has.

Mrs. Browning: Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me how I might have tabled a substantive motion. We tabled


a motion on the Adjournment of the House. What else is open to the Opposition if we are to have a debate that is not in Opposition time?

Mrs. Fitzsimons: Opposition—I hope that the hon. Lady gets used to being in opposition.
I have listened to many Members who have been in this place much longer than I have. I speak from the experiences that I have had so far in the House. I concur with the idea of an alternative career route. It would provide an alternative way of dedicating ourselves to the service that we are elected to undertake in this place. There are great merits in increasing the resourcing of Select Committee Chairs and Select Committees themselves.
The Government should be given some credit for increasing the access that Select Committees have to parliamentary time through Westminster Hall and other means since 1997. It is now possible to refer to many more Select Committee reports than hitherto. The reports were obscure and there were few references. It is cynical of the Opposition suddenly to jump, as though on a life raft, on the Liaison Committee's report. In 18 years of government, they did not advance the agenda. Some Opposition Members are slightly cynical.
It is incumbent upon us to be honest. The motion suggests that we swap one form of patronage for another. Three wise men would preside over the selection process—those Members would probably be men because men constitute the majority in this place. The majority of Chairs of Select Committees are men. There is no more democracy in that process than in the present system.
The bottom line currently is that the House decides. The usual channels, based on the numbers proportionately of Government Members and Opposition Members decide on the allocation. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the matter goes first to the parliamentary Labour party for reference, and it is then put to the House. The Conservative party nominates Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and Unionists, for example, decide who they will nominate. Thereafter, the Labour party decides who it will nominate through our democratic processes. There can be objections. There have been many debates about who should serve on Committees and who should be selected as Chairmen. Some Back-Bench Members will be aware of that. I hope that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats have had similarly vigorous debates. Some of my hon. Friends will have memories of the PLP and vigorous debate.

Mr. Brady: Are not Select Committees supposed to decide for themselves who will be their Chairmen? The hon. Lady has given a revealing insight into the extent to which the parliamentary Labour party tries to control the appointments of Chairmen.

Mrs. Fitzsimons: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is agreement on both sides of the House through the usual channels. Why do you think that we have

Opposition Chairs? The Select Committee on Social Security is one example. There is agreement and you know that and I know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady keeps using "you". She must try to use correct parliamentary language.

Mrs. Fitzsimons: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Chair—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Opposition are trying to suggest that the Government have sought to manipulate and belittle Select Committees and have given Back-Bench Members fewer rights on them. That belittles the truth since 1997. Any member of a Select Committee will be aware that, with pre-legislative scrutiny and extra sittings in Westminster Hall, there is, rightly, far more ability to publicise a Select Committee's work than there ever has been before. I come back to my point about patronage. The bottom line is that it is disingenuous itt the extreme to suggest that nominations by the Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen, as proposed in the Liaison Committee report, would be more democratic or more fair.

Mr. Grieve: Is there not the following distinction? When patronage comes from Back-Bench Members, I accept that there will be some patronage in all cases. However, it would be much more open to the House than it is at present to challenge decisions collectively if it was not satisfied with the way in which the system was being conducted. Effectively, the buck currently stops with the Executive, who control the whole decision-making process.

Mrs. Fitzsimons: That is simply not true. If the House wishes to object, it can do so. In talking about the usual channels abusing the position, we could refer to the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) objected to the recent appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner. Members who objected to the usual channels' nominations decided to debate them. The rules as they stand therefore allow Parliament and Back Benchers to object. The fact that we choose not to do so, for most of the time, is down to Members. Within the parliamentary Labour party, there have been debates about the way in which Members are selected and the balance on Select Committees.
To suggest that three wise people, as proposed in the report, would be more democratic and have less patronage is wrong, misleading and cynical. People outside who are watching our debate and are not familiar with the strange proceedings of the House of Commons may think that the proposal includes more democracy than the current arrangement. I contend otherwise. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne agreed that the proposal needed to be developed; he said that it contained flaws, but was a suggestion or start. I am worried that the report does not make provision, as there currently is, to hold Members to account for nominations and the process of membership of Select Committees.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fitzsimons: No, I have been generous and other Members wish to speak. I have given way to several Conservative Members.
Because of the cynical way in which the subject has been introduced in an Opposition day debate—

Mr. Bercow: How else?

Mrs. Fitzsimons: None the less, it was done that way.
I agree with the worthy intent at the heart of the Liaison Committee report to increase the expertise on Select Committees by inducing Members to stay with a Select Committee, rather than take the only way out currently available to Members seen to be doing a good job—the ministerial route. There is great merit in that. However, the matter has been introduced in a partisan way, with scant consideration for the past 18 years and the previous Government's blatant disregard for Select Committees. As has already been suggested, the Opposition changed the rules on how long one could be a Chairman because they disagreed with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, on which I serve. It is therefore extremely cynical to use the matter in a partisan manner.
Only a few other things need to be put on the record concerning my disagreement with the motion and decision to vote against it.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fitzsimons: No, I will not.
At the end of the day, it is worrying that the administering of discipline was slipped into the report. I find it worrying that there is suddenly reference to other bodies apart from Parliamentary Commissioners having responsibility for discipline. Perhaps there is more than meets the eye in the intention of some to pursue the report. Perhaps they are seeking to set up a patronage substructure that would undemocratically suggest the membership of Committees and seek to discipline members. No reference is made to how that would happen and by what criteria.
I cannot support the motion because, as I said, it is an Opposition motion, and also because we would be adopting a form of patronage that would be less representative than the system that we have.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When I first learned that the matter was to be debated this evening, I was tremendously encouraged. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate my commitment and dedication to the House of Commons. I felt that this would be a cross-party House of Commons debate—not a debate with the Opposition seeking to score points off the Government, not an occasion for the Government to score points off the Opposition, but an occasion when hon. Members could debate restoring to the House power, authority and integrity, to enable the House to hold to account the Government of the day, of whatever party, and to monitor the Government and their policies.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who chairs the Liaison Committee with great distinction, will recall that following a Liaison Committee meeting last week, before the business of the House had been announced, I advised him that it was my understanding that the debate on the Select Committee reports, entitled "Independence or Control?" and "Shifting

the Balance", would be the second debate on the Opposition Supply day today. I said that I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to support the motion and be a signatory to it.
I also approached the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. She, too, was tremendously encouraged that the debate was to take place. I approached the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security, so that there would be cross-party support for a debate in the House on a matter that is of considerable importance to the House.
I did not want to score political points. I wanted to put to the House ways of restoring its power and authority so that it would be meaningful, acting as we are on behalf of the people, in holding the Government of the day to account and monitoring their progress and policies.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for indicating that he will not vote against the motion. I believe that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, likewise, will not be in the Lobby tonight. These right hon. and hon. Members who chair Select Committees have been leading members of the Liaison Committee and appreciate what they put their name to. It would be utterly wrong and dishonest if they voted down a motion to which they had agreed in the report that was sent to the Government and presented to the House.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) is a hard-working, assiduous member of the Select Committee on Procedure, which I have the honour to chair. May I tell her that there are very few ways in which the Opposition can table subjects for debate, other than on Supply days? That is the only opportunity that Her Majesty's Opposition and other Opposition parties have to raise issues. The Leader of the House has frequently said from the Dispatch Box that the Opposition have an opportunity to bring before the House matters that they consider to be important, and that they should use their Supply day debates to do so. That is precisely what we are doing today.
I have the greatest regard for the Leader of the House, but I do not think that in the future she will be proud of the speech that she made in this debate. She added little to the debate. Many of her arguments were disingenuous and, I believe, inaccurate as they referred to matters that were not even discussed in the Liaison Committee reports, and she sought to misrepresent some proposals.
As one or two Members have said already, the motion asks the Government to work with the Liaison Committee to introduce new structures to the House along the lines that we suggest. We do not expect every recommendation to be accepted, but we believe that the House, rather than the Government exercising their influence through a three-line Whip, should have an opportunity to decide whether the report "Shifting the Balance" provides a case on which the Government and the House should negotiate. I believe that it does and hope, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, that we can still have a full debate on a substantive motion before the end of this Parliament so that the whole House, on a free vote, can decide whether the decision of the Liaison Committee is acceptable not to the Government, but to the House of Commons.
One or two Members have referred to my experience. I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale in particular that I became a member of the Health Committee when it was established in 1990, following the splitting of the Social Services Committee between social security and health. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) took the Chair of the Social Security Committee; I took the Chair of the Health Committee. I did that against the votes of my party, but with the support of the Labour and Ulster Unionist parties and through my own vote.
My party would have preferred a good friend of mine, Sir David Price, who was a member of the Social Services Committee and in his last Parliament, to chair the Health Committee, but the Committee decided that it wanted me. I enjoyed the job and my work on Select Committees has been the most rewarding work that I have done in the House.
Of course, in 1992, when the Select Committees were reappointed, the Whips Office—the usual channels of my party—in collusion with the Labour Whips decided not to reappoint me for the reason, right or wrong, that it did not like me doing the job that the House of Commons wanted me to do. A Select Committee Chairman who undertakes an inquiry must base his report on the written or oral evidence that he is given and must not allow personal prejudice to prevail. That did not suit my party, which was in power. I think that it was wrong and that that decision brought it a great deal of unpopularity.

Mr. Bercow: Discredit.

Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend. The decision did bring my party some discredit.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office that I believe that my party has learned from that, which is why we have used this opportunity to introduce a debate on a substantive motion on restoring to the House of Commons its integrity and its independence. I repeat that the second report, which comments on the Government's reply to our first report, is entitled "Independence or Control?". If I asked each Member in the Chamber, "Do you want Select Committees to be controlled by the Government or be independent and representative of the views of the House?", every single one would say, "We want Select Committees to be independent of the Government of the day." That is what the two reports are about.

Mrs. Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made? If Select Committees are not independent, why have so many of their reports in recent months criticised the Government? If the hon. Gentleman's assertion is correct, why are Select Committees so publicly critical of the Government? Their reports are also debated in Westminster Hall, which the hon. Gentleman chairs, so there is greater opportunity to criticise the Government.

Mr. Winterton: Fortunately, a majority of Select Committees have been prepared to base their reports on the evidence given to them. There is nothing they can do if the evidence is critical of either a Conservative or a

Labour Government. They are obliged to publish their reports accordingly, and to reflect that criticism in their conclusions and recommendations.

Mr. Cash: The shenanigans of the Select Committee on Education and Employment the other day suggest that some Select Committees sometimes go deeply off-message.

Mr. Winterton: I have quite a few jobs in this place, and I have not been following the shenanigans—as my hon. Friend puts it—of the Education and Employment Committee, but I shall certainly read its report with interest when it is published.
Membership of Select Committees must be taken out of the hands of the Whips and the usual channels. The Chairman of Committees and two Deputy Chairmen would have the integrity, experience and ability to nominate members to Select Committees and, if necessary, to advise, but each Committee would appoint its own Chairman. The nominations made by the Chairman of Committees and two Deputy Chairmen would have to be confirmed on the Floor of the House. At present, a motion is tabled by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, which sadly is dominated and influenced by the usual channels. The recommendation is that a motion would be tabled by the Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen to the House, and Members could decide on a free vote who they wanted and could confirm the membership of a Committee.

Mrs. Fitzsimons: rose—

Mr. Winterton: I shall not give way again, as the hon. Lady has spoken and 1 want to finish my remarks.
Some hon. Members have talked about the co-ordination of departmental Select Committees. I can tell the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who chairs the Liaison Committee, that we dealt with that issue in paragraphs 64 to 69 on joined-up Committees. We recommended a structure that I believe would be ideal to handle this situation, and I ask the Government to give it serious consideration.
I am a House of Commons man. I have been in the House for almost 30 years. I have never been on the Government or Opposition Front Bench, although on two or three occasions when we were in opposition between 1974 and 1979 I spoke from the Front Bench, as part of the agriculture team, late at night on milk orders and other such issues. I have never been a Front Bencher, and I suspect that, sadly, I never will be. I am keen that the House should provide an alternative career structure for some Members, most of whom will be long-serving Back Benchers, but some of whom will have had service on the Front Bench, such as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who was a distinguished Treasury Minister. That would enable those Members to have a meaningful career that is recognised by right hon. and hon. Members in this place. That is highlighted in paragraphs 29 to 34 of the report.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will admit that it is about time that those who serve this place should be given a role. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is sitting next to me, has given tremendous service in this


place. We should not have to stoop and creep to become Ministers. We should be honourable Members standing up for the integrity of the House of Commons.

Mr. John Healey: I had not intended to speak, but I was disturbed by the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I was disturbed in the same way when I listened to the exchanges that opened the debate on 9 November. Moreover, I consider this issue to he fundamental to all Members.
I have another reason for wishing to speak. Like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whom I am pleased to follow, I have served on the Employment Sub-Committee of the Education and Employment Committee. I must say that this is one of the most worthwhile things I have done during my short time in the House. We developed a specialist knowledge of our subject, dealt in detail with issues presented to us on the basis of hard evidence, expressed criticism and were able to push the Government further.
There were, I think, two hallmarks of our success. One was able chairmanship, for which I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster); the other was constructive cross-party co-operation, for which I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I am glad to see that that provided a launch pad for a further step in the hon. Gentleman's career, and that he is now on the Opposition Front Bench.
This is an important report, featuring a number of dimensions with which I find myself in strong agreement. It sets out effectively the need to reinforce the place of pre-legislation scrutiny, and proposals to make joint—or joined-up—Committee working easier. It also presents an effective argument for the need to improve presentation, publicity and the provision of public information. The problem of slow or superficial Government responses to Select Committee reports needed to be criticised, and is criticised forcefully in the report The case for better back-up resources seems unarguable to me.
When I checked the sessional returns for 1998–99—the last available—I was staggered to find that the entire work of our Select Committees was supported by 77 members of staff, not counting out-and-out secretarial staff, and that the total cost was only £4.6 million. That is £300,000 less than the Short money that we paid to Opposition parties last year. I leave Members to make up their own minds about which is better value for money.
Let me return to the debate that took place on 9 November. I was dismayed by the way in which it was dominated by the Chairs of Select Committees who were responsible for the report. I note from the sessional returns that in 1998–99 no fewer than 388 Members served on Select Committees. I was disappointed then—I am slightly less disappointed now—that more Members did not choose to become involved in the debate on these matters. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on 9 November, the proposals that we are debating
would impinge on the role of every individual Member in the House".—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 480.]
There are, however, two major points on which I have some disagreement with the Liaison Committee's report. The first relates to the selection of Committee members.

It must be said that, if the report's recommendations on the Select Committee panel were accepted, a very small number of people would be given formidable powers in relation to parliamentary appointments and the business of the House. I strongly object to the proposal that three Members, however senior and however wise, should decide Select Committee membership, should largely determine the distribution of Select Committee chairmanships and should largely control replacements when vacancies arise.
The report does not make the case for that step; and it is not self-evident that three people, rather than the Liaison Committee, will produce a process that is more transparent, less susceptible to patronage or more likely to lead to more effective operation of Select Committees. Simply asserting this, as paragraph 20 does, is no substitute for arguing the case. The report fails to do that.

Mr. Bercow: I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman, but he is repeating the point that was made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons). Does he accept this proposition? Although, inevitably, a panel of independent persons will be subject to attempts by the unctuous and sycophantic to get on to Committees, it will be able to resist that pressure. The key difference between the panel of independent persons and the Whips as the determinant of the composition of Committees is that the panel will have no interest whatever in a Member of Parliament's record of being malleable and in whether that person intends to be malleable in future. That is how it is distinctive from and to be preferred to the Whips for that purpose.

Mr. Healey: My concern about the proposal is that it would replace, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) said, one form of patronage with another. It is likely to be less transparent and it will not necessarily lead to more effective Select Committee work. I appreciate the concern about the independence of Select Committees, which underlies the recommendations and the hon. Gentleman's intervention. That is important to our Select Committee system, but I am still not convinced that the problem of independence is of a scale that the report's sledgehammer proposal suggests.

Mr. Cash: Having listened to a great deal of the debate—time is getting on—I would like to pose one question. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is only one way to deal with the power of the Whips and patronage? Having been at the rough end of that in the Maastricht debates and on many other occasions, perhaps I have some authority to speak on the matter. If Standing Orders made it a contempt of the House for a Whip, or any other person, to seek to influence an hon. Member in the conduct of, for example, his role on a Select Committee, it would sort the matter out once and for all. Without doing that, venality, patronage and the desire for appointment or otherwise will always prevail.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman suggests an even larger sledgehammer to crack the problem, which I am not convinced is on the scale that even the Committee's recommendations warrant. I notice that even the hon. Member for Macclesfield winced a little when he made his point. The Select Committee corridor is some distance from the Whips room. In my experience, the knowledge


and expertise that Select Committee members build in taking and sifting evidence gives strength to the judgments that are reflected in reports. A number of notable all-party reports have criticised Ministers and Government policy. That belies the idea that Select Committees are falling far short in their duty to subject Government to independent scrutiny.
The proposals on the selection of Committee members ignore one of the fundamental realities of our Parliament and its Select Committee work. The Liaison Committee report acknowledges that in paragraph 9, which says that
operating within the political framework, select committees are to some extent affected by party loyalty and organisation, which structure the way in which Parliament and its institutions work.
We cannot escape that reality, to which the Committee directs our attention.
I turn to the opportunities for the House to pick up on the work of Select Committees in reinforcing the scrutiny that they conduct on our behalf. The Committee and the report make some very real points on that matter.
Just before the November 2000 debate, I asked the Library to analyse the number of Select Committee reports that were published and the number of reports that were debated in the House, excluding reports from the Public Accounts Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the European Scrutiny Committee. In 1997–98, 157 reports were published, but only 16—about 10 per cent—were debated. In the following year, 182 reports were published, but only 26 were debated. I am not including the reports—comprising about 17 per cent. of the total—that were dealt with by being "tagged" as relevant in other motions.
Westminster Hall has certainly been helpful by allowing a detailed and deliberative airing of some of the issues raised in Select Committee reports, but what counts is not the general link with the House but the specific link with this Chamber. Debate is not the best format to ensure enhanced scrutiny of Government. Paragraph 40 of the report recommends weekly half-hour debates after Question Time. However, not only is half an hour too short for a decent debate, but a debate is the wrong method to use if we are more effectively to hold Ministers to account.
I propose that, instead, we have a half-hour Question Time in which we deal with reports and the Government's response to them on major issues. A Question Time could give priority to Select Committee members, but would also allow other hon. Members to exercise their scrutiny function. It would also rightly raise the profile of the work of Select Committees.
In conclusion, I pray in aid part of paragraph 8 of the report. I agree strongly and fundamentally with the assertion that
After two decades—and especially in the present climate of constitutional change—we think it is time for some further reform and modernisation.
I believe that it will be more important in the next Parliament for the Government to grasp the challenge of reinforcing the scrutiny role of Select Committees. I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House not simply to pick out the parts of the report with which they can agree and react to the specifics, but to accept the general challenge

of maintaining the Government's modernisation initiative and consider their own proposals in the areas in which there is a well-founded case for strengthening the work of our Select Committee system.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) made a very thoughtful speech, and his suggestion to have a half-hour Question Time rather than debate is well worth considering. Indeed, it fits entirely with the motion that we are debating, which states that the report
provides the right basis for … further development".
We are asking the Government to give serious, positive and constructive consideration to a very thoughtful report. I well understand why the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) feels unable to vote today. Although I greatly regret that and know that he will be with us in spirit in voting for the motion, I realise why he feels that it is essential to sit on the Bench while we vote. Nevertheless, I join him in saying that it is a great pity that we have had to use what is still commonly called an Opposition Supply day to debate the report. Although I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on choosing the subject for today's debate and am delighted that she did, it is a damning indictment of the Government that the Opposition have had to find time for it.
Although I have a personal regard for the Leader of the House, which the Parliamentary Secretary knows to be genuine and true, and I dislike criticising people in their absence, I think that she made a shoddy and shallow speech today that did not do her or her office any credit whatsoever. She did not face up to the issues that the House is addressing. The way in which she dismissed the suggestion for half-hour debates was in marked and shameful contrast to what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Wentworth. On balance, I would still prefer a half-hour debate, but he has made a suggestion that is well worth considering. It is the first time that I have heard it and I would like to reflect on it.
I am absolutely convinced that when colleagues—the 388 who, according to the hon. Member for Wentworth, have served on Select Committees in this Parliament—have worked hard on Select Committees, investigating crucial subjects in depth and reporting thoughtfully to the House, normally on the basis of a unanimous, cross-party report, it is appalling that their reports are pigeonholed.
I accept that that has not happened only under this Government. I have suffered from the malign influence of the Whips Office in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—who, as always, made a very good and rumbustious speech—at least did get to Chair a Select Committee. I served on the first Select Committee on education in 1979, as what was called the ranking Tory Member. When the chairmanship changed—Christopher Price lost his seat in 1983—I had certain expectations. I knew that I was not going to be climbing the ministerial career ladder and I thought that being Chairman of that Committee would be rather agreeable.
I was told by one of the Whips, in no uncertain terms, that I was not reliable enough. We had approved a number of reports that were mildly critical of Government policy. Sir William van Straubenzee, who had not sat on the Committee, was asked whether he would come in. I did


not challenge that, because I had such a genuine affection for the late Bill van Straubenzee—who served with great distinction in Northern Ireland—that I did not wish to find myself in conflict with him. I withdrew from the Committee.
That illustrates the power and influence of the Whips in a Select Committee. The Leader of the House protested far too much tonight when she brought out her rule book and read chapter and verse what the Labour party does and does not demand. Everybody knows that the Whips have a very real influence and that that is where patronage truly lies.
I disagreed with the first part of the hon. Member for Wentworth's speech, in which he spoke of an alternative patronage. If there is an alternative patronage, I would much rather that it were exercised by independent-minded senior Members on both sides of the House—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: People like you.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, people like me, and people like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The three of us would certainly decide without fear or favour who were the most suitable people. We would take into account the credentials and CVs of those who wanted to serve on Select Committees so that we did not have the absurd situation in which somebody with a detailed knowledge of, say, transport was kept off the Transport Select Committee, as happened in the past.
I have a real regard for the hon. Member for Wentworth, but I say to him that it is far better to have that patronage exercised in House of Commons matters by House of Commons men and women—who are answerable to this House for their every action and their every recommendation—than by the Whips Office. Just as I will rethink my support for debates in favour of questions, I ask him to rethink his support for Whips' patronage in favour of a different sort of patronage.
Much has been made of the three wise men or women making decisions. However, it does not have to be three, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton agrees. If, after consultation, it were decided that this would be far better done by a wholly independent selection committee of six or eight, my hon. Friend would accept it, I would accept it and I strongly suspect that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee would accept it.

Mr. Sheldon: indicated assent.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is indicating as much as I speak.
We are concerned not about how many there will be, or even who they will be, but about how the appointments are to be made. If Select Committees are to maintain their tradition of independence and to provide the alternative career ladder that is so important, we need to reform the manner in which appointments are made.
There was a time when to come to this House was the summit of most men and women's ambitions. To represent a constituency in this kingdom was an honour than which there was no greater. Far too many people now come at a very young age. One remembers the quote about every private having a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. Members behave as if the briefcase in the boot

of their Ford Cortina were a ministerial red box—or a ticket to exchange it for one. They come here with ministerial ambitions and are often rather muted in their criticism of their party, whether in government or in opposition, because they have aspirations.
I would like to see more people coming to this House who merely want to serve here, but of course they want to exercise their talents, develop their gifts and progress. There is no better way of doing that than via the Select Committee system, particularly as the Chairman of a Select Committee.
I believe that this report, "Shifting the Balance", creates the opportunity for that to happen. The final paragraph of the Liaison Committee's second report, "Independence or Control?" says:
There has been much discussion about shorter sitting hours, and more family-friendly scheduling of business in the House. This may be all very well; but any real modernisation of Parliament must provide better accountability and tougher scrutiny of the Government of the day. This is our aim. We believe it is the test by which the public will judge the effectiveness and value of Parliament. This is not something that will go away.
What wise words. The Leader of the House talked rather disparagingly of this debate in business questions last week. She should have read those wise words.
There is no more important subject for the health of the body politic than the effectiveness of the parliamentary system, and particularly of the place of this House within it. It is extremely important that the Government attach importance to those words.
The Prime Minister may shortly decide that he will not complete the five years that he said he would complete. He may decide to cut and run and hold an election. If he does, he will hope to come back with another majority. We shall to our best to ensure that he does not. However, if he is ever in a position of authority again, he should recognise that the strength of a Government is measured not by the size of their majority but by the quality of their legislation. The quality of their legislation and their actions is largely determined by the effectiveness of scrutiny in this place. It is crucial, therefore, that we give to Select Committees—which are, of all bodies, the best equipped to scrutinise—a new and revived authority.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has, for all the inconvenience it may cause him, pledged himself to accept this report. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister, when he winds up the debate, to say that he will tell the Leader of the House that we have had a debate in which only one Member has supported her line uncritically. The House of Commons demands to be heard and it wants, before the election, free votes on substantive motions in Government time on these issues.

Mr. Derek Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I had not intended to speak, but it struck me that this is one of the most crucial debates in which someone who loves the House of Commons can take part.
I inhabited the sewers of Westminster for 10 years as Opposition Chief Whip. I had to do many of the shabby things that have been referred to, although much of what I did was entirely honourable, such as the defence of Back Benchers against the undue influence of certain members


of the party leadership. If I had not done that, those Back Benchers would never have been appointed to Select Committees. That story has never been told, and may never be told or written, but one of my functions, I took it, was to ensure that every Member from my party should have the opportunity to serve on a Select Committee, no matter what the wishes of certain individuals.
One thing that I learned—very painfully—during 18 years in opposition was that most of the cards are stacked on the side of the Executive, no matter which party is in power. Perhaps under the previous Government, that was not quite so: their majority was 22 and fell to just one. At that time, the House of Commons began to take some powers.
Our dilemma is that the country often wants strong government, which means a strong Executive who can have their way most of the time. Sometimes, however, the country falls out of love with a strong Government, deciding, for example, that although it wanted Lady Thatcher to do some things, it did not want the poll tax and she had had far too much power. Indeed, many say the latter of the present Prime Minister. They ask why the House of Commons does not use its powers to bring the Government more to account. It is a good question, to which we have no very good answer at present.
The Liaison Committee report, of which I am proud to be a signatory, was an attempt to shift the balance, only marginally, from the Executive and towards all the Members of the House of Commons. It is a little strange for people to argue superficially—perhaps in the hope of congratulations from the Whip on the Front Bench—that the Committee was arguing not for Back Benchers, but from some other motive. Our motive was to enhance the position of Parliament vis-a-vis the Executive, and it is important that we should achieve that.
Our solutions may not be the best possible. I strongly favoured taking the power of appointments from the Whips. I reached that conclusion after exercising that very influence for 10 years. I did not reach that conclusion before I stopped being Chief Whip. I admit, but towards the end of my tenure of that job, I concluded that one of the best ways to enhance the powers of Select Committees would be to remove appointments from the power of the Whips. That is because we want those appointments to be independent. It could well be that the Whips Office exercises its control over the appointments extremely responsibly, but there must be a perception that the people who scrutinise the Government are appointed by people who are independent of the Government. That perception is important both for the country and for Members of this place.
We may not have come up with the best solution, but the motivation is right. We want to achieve that end, and with the good will of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office we could play a historic part in enhancing the power of the legislature against the Executive. With a majority of 180, the Executive have nothing to fear. That is why it is so important to take such steps during this Parliament. The Executive have nothing to fear from the enhancement of the power of Parliament.
I shall join my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) when we vote this evening, but I want my right hon. and hon. Friends on the

Treasury Bench to realise the motivation of their colleagues in advancing and signing the report; it is not against the Government, but to ensure that the Executive, whoever is in power, are brought much more to account by Members of the House.

Mr. William Cash: I shall speak only briefly, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will make important contributions. I have little to add to the remarks that I made on the Whip system in a debate last July.
The quality of this debate has increased dramatically towards its end. I was disappointed that the Leader of the House engaged in no more than some rather unnecessary party politics. She made some good points—from her point of view—but the debate is of immense importance, as is the report of the Liaison Committee.
I was very taken with the speech of the former Labour Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). He understands that the Government will have problems in accepting the recommendations of the report, but that, if there is good will on all sides, many constructive results could emerge from it.
However much we examine the issue, it is ultimately about accountability, scrutiny and questions. The House depends entirely on the ability of its Members to call the Government to account. We can do that only by asking questions. There is a difference between debate and questioning. A debate can take the form of a question, but questions are the bottom line. If we are to ask questions of people with enormous power and influence, who know things that we do not know, and if we have to scramble about to get the answers to those questions, we need people who know what they are talking about. We need people who are prepared to dedicate their time and their lives—some call it a career, but I prefer not to do so—to ensuring that the Government are properly held to account.
The appointment of Select Committees by Government Whips, by agreement between the usual channels or by the Whips on both sides of the House is not the best way to proceed. That point is the jewel in the crown of the report. It is vital that such an important report was produced. It is an enormous pity that the House as a whole could not have had a free vote on the subject.
I have been a member of a particular Select Committee since 1985. As someone who has been excluded from its chairmanship—perhaps by virtue of my long tenure but perhaps also because of the long-standing knowledge of my views on its subject—I believe none the less that it is vital that the essence and reasoning behind the report of the Liaison Committee should be accepted by the whole House.
Lastly, as I have previously proposed, Standing Orders should exist to deal with any undue influence exerted on Members of Parliament, by Whips or anyone else inside or outside the House, so that the people who exercise that undue and unfair influence could be brought to book. I emphasise the fact that that no real distinction should be made between external and internal influences on matters that could affect the effectiveness of the House in bringing people to account. This is a debate about scrutiny, and it should not be determined by the Whips. The most


astonishing aspect of this debate is that it represents a three-line attack on the House's scrutiny, and I find that a very extraordinary proposition.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a worthwhile and, indeed, fascinating debate. I find it particularly so because, looking at the pile papers on which I have noted the comments of the contributors, which I normally separate into two halves—those with whom I agree and those with whom I disagree—it is apparent at the end of this debate that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and the Leader of the House, I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of speakers.
The hon. Member for Rochdale provided us with the most fascinating insight into the mindset of what appeared to be a cloned member of the parliamentary Labour party. She described a system under which agreements and decisions are taken entirely behind closed doors and how, once those decisions have been taken, the corporatist instinct involves a carve-up between the Whips. She offered us the Panglossian suggestion that this was the best approach to take in the best of all possible worlds. It was a most depressing contribution, but it simply echoed entirely that of Leader of the House, who has treated us—it was sometimes difficult to keep straight face—to a series of pronouncements on the fact that we were all taking leave of our senses by suggesting that the present system should be changed and, moreover, that what we are proposing represents a huge constitutional change. That seems rather odd, given that it comes from a party that has introduced more huge constitutional change in three years than perhaps any other, especially as, in fact, all that has been suggested are changes in the procedures of the House designed to try to enhance the way in which we work.
As for the contributions that I find it easy to support, even if I disagree with them in part, I hope that I may be excused if I start with that of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), because I found his speech extremely interesting. He made a thoughtful speech and his proposals, for example, that we should have a further half-hour Question Time on Select Committee reports and the Government responses to them, made a great deal of sense. However, I disagree that the proposals for the appointment of Select Committees are like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I appreciate, however, that they caused him anxiety.
In response to the hon. Gentleman, first, the Liaison Committee report says that the proposals represent the basis for the future, not the detail of the future. That is what we are being asked to consider this evening. Secondly, I ask him to consider the point made by numerous of my hon. Friends—such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Stone (Mr. Cash)—that the mischief of the present system is that whenever we disagree with the way in which the Executive ultimately control such appointments, it becomes an issue of confidence in the Executive. We all know the reality; the House operates under a system of party politics. We are constantly asked to temper our views so as not to rock the boat. Indeed, the system of government could not operate

unless that were the case; it is an important discipline for us. However, when the House considers issues that, frankly, do not relate to any fundamental matter at all, is not it desirable and sensible that we should alter our procedures to remove the Executive's hold and to allow more informed discussion?
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. Let us suppose that somebody disagrees fundamentally with the way in which a Select Committee membership has been set up. To question that if one is a Government or Opposition Back Bencher means questioning those in authority in one's own party and the discretion that they have exercised. There would be no need for that to happen if the system that has been proposed by the Liaison Committee's report were to be followed. I suggest that it would then be very much easier for anyone in the House to ask questions precisely because those questions would not touch upon a confidence in either the Government or the Opposition. That is where I see merit in the proposals that have been made.
It has been argued that the proposals will create patronage. Of course, everyone can exercise patronage; anybody who can exercise power can grant patronage. However, I would be much happier for that power to be exercised by someone whom can I question, I can team up with Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers to table a motion and criticise and, ultimately, I could remove without bringing down the whole pack of cards of government. Surely, that is a better way to proceed, and that is what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the members of his Liaison Committee were proposing.
I draw the House's attention to some of the Government's responses to the report. They show an extraordinarily blinkered frame of mind. The principle at the nub of our debate is the question of who does the appointing and paragraph 11 of their response to the Liaison Committee report says:
The Government believe it is right that the opposition should supply the chair of some Committees, and cannot accept a system which might place this in jeopardy.
I shed tears over those remarks. Do the Government seriously think that we will be concerned if the members of an independent panel, who command the trust of the House because of their personal standing, make appointments even when that might mean that, at times, the appointments of the chairmanship do not follow the hallowed processes that the Leader of the House has put forward?
I need think only of the Committee on which I sit, the Environmental Audit Committee. It has a Chairman who is an Opposition Member, but I recollect that, at the time of his appointment, some members of the Committee felt great anxiety about his appointment. However, because of his standing and the way in which he has conducted the Committee, the problem disappeared. We all know the reality: if people get on to Select Committees and do a good job and if the Chairmen are impartial, the truth is that, as numerous Members have said, we start to operate on a cross-party basis. Because the remit of Select Committees is scrutiny, they frequently tend to ask the Executive awkward questions about how they are carrying out what they say they are carrying out. The Committees do not necessarily question wider areas of policy.
As the House approaches the decision that it must take at 10 o'clock, I am mindful of the fact that this is a Supply day and this is an Opposition motion. I recognise that


some Government Back Benchers might feel embarrassed about going into the Opposition Lobby, but does that not precisely illustrate the point that I have been making in the past few minutes? It is high time that we took this issue away from the realm of party politics. That is feasible.

Mr. Dennis Turner: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the issue out of the realm of party politics, why has he chosen to debate the matter under an Opposition day motion? Does he not think that that has done great damage to the cause that is being espoused?

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the debate, so I have to tell him that we have had no other opportunity to hold this debate on a motion with a Division. Therefore, having asked repeatedly for such a debate, we thought it fit to bring the matter before the House. I am truly sorry that the motion is an imperfect mechanism, but it is the only one at our disposal.
I very much hope that the debate persuades hon. Members on both sides of the House to implement the proposals. I am certain of one thing—I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has a deep and heart-felt commitment to restoring the ability of the legislature to scrutinise the activities of the Executive. We set that out clearly in our paper on reforming Parliament, and when we get back into office, we will do just that.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The debate on the Liaison Committee's first report has been lively. In many respects, it parallels the previous debate in November because the arguments rehearsed then have been re-run this evening. Apart from some different shades and emphasis, it is fair to say that little new has been added. However, there is one exception: my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear the way in which the Labour party proposes names for Select Committees. It is a much wider process than many believe.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Tipping: Although I usually give way to the hon. Gentleman, I cannot tonight because time is tight.
Given the challenges of the Opposition parties, it is interesting that darkness and cloudiness surround the way in which they select names for Select Committee membership. It may well be that the role of the Whips is more prevalent and heightened in those parties.
Given the tone of the debate, I wonder why the Opposition have decided to table the motion. The debate has been about process rather than product. It has focused on the way in which we run our business instead of concentrating on the outcomes of our activities. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that the issue would not command public interest because it is a House matter. However, I suspect that the Opposition are reluctant to discuss outcomes because we have a stable and growing economy; spending per pupil

has increased; infant classes are smaller and standards are rising; there is extra capital spending in the national health service and reduced waiting lists; and, since the general election, there has been a fall in crime.
Sensing that there is the possibility of embarrassment, the official Opposition have tabled a motion on a House matter. It will come as no surprise, therefore, that, in the face of mischief-making, the Government are taking a strong line against it. My right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) clearly recognised that position.
Let me be unusually combative and tackle two fundamental issues directly. The Government do not agree with the methods that the Committee suggests to increase the independence and influence of Select Committees. We reject the notion that giving power to a small group—however senior—over whom Back Benchers have no hold will increase the status or effectiveness of Committees. I think that the Committee's premise has been distorted by people outside the House who may not understand that there is two-way traffic between Back Benchers and the Whips. To be blunt, any Whips Office that forgets the nature of this relationship is in for a shock.
A sub-theme of the debate is an understanding of how the Whips Office works. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the former hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who now writes for The Independent as, I should explain, a humorist. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that Whips were not idols. I agree entirely.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland confessed to being a super-sewer. He would say no more on that, but perhaps the book will be written one day. As someone who has experienced his black arts, I look forward to reading it. We consider that although there may be disadvantages to the current method of selection, it has produced Committees that are effective and independent of Government. The Liaison Committee reports are in themselves proof of that.
Although the Liaison Committee believes that greater debate on substantive motions would increase the Committee's profile and effectiveness, we believe that it would bring party politics into the heart of the Committee system. Some may consider that today's debate shows that we are right to be concerned.
More positively, although we disagree about the methods for producing an effective Select Committee system, the Government want Committees that are independent and effective. The Liaison Committee is in danger of selling the existing Committees short. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about sharpness of focus and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne talked about best practice in Select Committees. The Committees can do much of what he advocated within their present remit.
We agree wholeheartedly with the Liaison Committee's basic premise that the 1979 Committee system has been a success, that it is, and should continue to be, an entrenched part of our constitution and that the Committees perform a valuable role in holding the Executive to account. We can never agree on the present proposal on appointments or on motions on the Floor of the House, but let us set those questions aside. Let us consider matters on which we do agree.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) recognised that the Liaison Committee's report contained areas of agreement. Committees should have greater resources. That is primarily a matter for the Commission, and the Government will certainly not stand in its way. I understand that there are continuing discussions on that matter.
There should be increased scrutiny. The European scrutiny system has been reformed and extended. We have accepted the Procedure Committee's recommendations on the scrutiny of treaties. Departments have been instructed to co-operate in any review of recommendations that a Committee may make. Pre-legislative scrutiny will continue. I hope that we will be able to do more, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth in desiring that.
Committees should have more influence. The Government have accepted the Procedure Committee's recommendations that if a Committee recommends a debate on a treaty, that will normally be granted. Select Committees will win respect by the force of their arguments—that point was made several times tonight. Westminster Hall ensures that Ministers will not be able to avoid those arguments.
I have already dealt with the substantive motion. I do not believe that transferring a debate from Westminster Hall to the Chamber would increase attendance. The Liaison Committee itself notes:
Debates are an extremely effective way of focusing the minds of Ministers and officials on a report, and the need to justify the Government reply.
Thanks to Westminster Hall, more Select Committee reports are being debated than ever before, and that number will increase. Overall in the previous Session, 28 Select Committee reports were debated. So far in this Session, a further five have been debated. That represents debating time beyond reformers' wildest dreams. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) dreams on and asks for more debating time I hope that in time we will be able to help him.
Committees should have greater powers to work together. We have undertaken that any request from the Liaison Committee for an ad hoc Committee will be seriously considered. Whenever a Committee has requested powers, we have tabled a motion to grant that request. I have been happy to speak to two of those motions. Sadly, as colleagues will have noted, there has been difficulty in getting certain business through the House. I make no complaint about that, but I regret that the difficulty that we have encountered in dealing with minor matters has meant that we have not yet been able to introduce the more radical changes to Standing Orders that I foreshadowed in my earlier speech. Only last week, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee requested a change in Standing Orders to enable a sub-Committee to be established. If he looks at today's Order Paper, he will see that we hope to oblige him.
The last time the Liaison Committee's report was debated, I said that it was important to recognise that the balance had already shifted in favour of the Committees. Indeed, it is likely to shift further in future—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 280.

Division No. 115]
[10.2 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gill, Christopher


Allan, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Amess, David
Gray, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Green, Damian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Greenway, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hammond, Philip


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hancock, Mike


Bercow, John
Harris, Dr Evan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Harvey, Nick


Blunt, Crispin
Hawkins, Nick


Body, Sir Richard
Hayes, John


Boswell, Tim
Heald, Oliver


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brand, Dr Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Breed, Colin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burnett, John



Burstow, Paul
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Kirkwood, Archy


Cash, William
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew


Chidgey, David
Letwin, Oliver


Chope, Christopher
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clappison, James
Lidington, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Llwyd, Elfyn


Collins, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Luff, Peter


Cotter, Brian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Madel, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maginnis, Ken


Evans, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael


Fearn, Ronnie
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Flight, Howard
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
May, Mrs Theresa


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Moore, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Moss, Malcolm


Gibb, Nick
Norman, Archie


Gidley, Sandra
Oaten, Mark






O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Syms, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prior, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


Rendel, David
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tyler, Paul


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Viggers, Peter


Ruffley, David
Walter, Robert


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Waterson, Nigel


St Aubyn, Nick
Webb, Steve


Sanders, Adrian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Soames, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir Michael
Willis, Phil


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stunell, Andrew
Sir George Young and


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Nicholas Winterton.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Coffey, Ms Ann


(Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coleman, Iain


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Colman, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Cooper, Yvette


Austin, John
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Barren, Kevin
Cranston, Ross



Battle, John
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Begg, Miss Anne
(Copeland)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith


Benton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Best, Harold
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blackman, Liz
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
(B'ham Hodge H)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cann, Jamie
Ennis, Jeff


Casale, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Caton, Martin
Fisher, Mark


Cawsey, Ian
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Clapham, Michael
Flint, Caroline


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Flynn, Paul





Follett, Barbara
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gapes, Mike

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gardiner, Barry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Merron, Gillian


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moffatt, Laura


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Moran, Ms Margaret


Healey, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hendrick, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Heppell, John
(B'ham Yardley)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Hill, Keith
(Aberavon)


Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Hara, Eddie


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neill, Martin


Humble, Mrs Joan
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hutton, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pearson, Ian


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Ms Jenny
Powell, Sir Raymond


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prosser, Gwyn


Joyce, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rapson, Syd


Kemp, Fraser
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robertson, John


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Lammy, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Laxton, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Lepper, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Joan


Linton, Martin
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salter, Martin


Lock, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm



McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonnell, John
Singh, Marsha


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Miss Geraidine


McNulty, Tony
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive






Southworth, Ms Helen
Tynan, Bill


Spellar, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Squire, Ms Rachel
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wareing, Robert N


Steinberg, Gerry
Watts, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
White, Brian


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Suteliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woodward, Shaun


Tipping, Paddy
Woolas, Phil


Touhig, Don
Wray, James


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Tellers for the Noes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 164.

Division No. 116]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caton, Martin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cawsey, Ian


Ainger, Nick
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Coaker, Vernon


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Iain


Battle, John
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cooper, Yvette


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cox, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F
Cranston, Ross


Benton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blackman, Liz



Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey Valerie (Bristol W)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Browne, Desmond



Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, Rt Hon John


Burgon, Colin
Dismore, Andrew


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobbin, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Doran, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)





Edwards, Huw
McDonnell, John


Efford, Clive
McFall, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McIsaac, Shona


Ennis, Jeff
McNamara, Kevin


Etherington, Bill
McNulty, Tony


Fisher, Mark
MacShane, Denis


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McWalter, Tony


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
McWilliam, John


Flint, Caroline
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mallaber, Judy


Follett, Barbara
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gapes, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gardiner, Barry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Martlew, Eric


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Maxton, John


Godsiff, Roger
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Merron, Gillian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moffatt, Laura


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Healey, John
Morley, Elliot


Hendrick, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia



Hill, Keith
Mudie, George


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hood, Jimmy
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoyle, Lindsay
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Humble, Mrs Joan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pollard, Kerry


Jamieson, David
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Joyce, Eric
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quinn, Lawrie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rapson, Syd


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kemp, Fraser
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kilfoyle, Peter



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lammy, David
Rooney, Terry


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Ruddock, Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Salter, Martin


Linton, Martin
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Savidge, Malcolm


Lock, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis






Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tynan, Bill


Snape, Peter
Walley, Ms Joan


Soley, Clive
Ward, Ms Claire


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wicks, Malcolm


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stoate,Dr Howard
Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woodward, Shaun



Woolas, Phil


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wray, James


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wyatt, Derek


Tipping, Paddy



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trickett, Jon
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Allan, Richard
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbutnnot, Rt Hon James
Evans, Nigel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Feam, Ronnie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Flight, Howard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bercow, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blunt, Crispin
Garnier, Edward


Body, Sir Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Boswell, Tim
Gibb, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gidley, Sandra


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Brady, Graham
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brand, Dr Peter
Gray, James


Brazier, Julian
Green, Damian


Breed, Colin
Greenway, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grieve, Dominic


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hammond, Philip


Burnett, John
Hancock, Mike


Burstow, Paul
Harris, Dr Evan


Butterfill, John
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chidgey, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)



Jenkin, Bernard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Collins, Tim



Cormack, Sir Patrick
Key, Robert


Cotter, Brian
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cran, James
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor





Lait, Mrs Jacqui
St Aubyn, Nick


Letwin, Oliver
Sanders, Adrian


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Livsey, Richard
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spicer, Sir Michael


Loughton, Tim
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Syms, Robert


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mates, Michael
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Townend, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Trend, Michael


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tyler, Paul


Moore, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Walter, Robert


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Webb, Steve


Oaten, Mark
Whitney, Sir Raymond


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Whittingdale, John


Ottaway, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Page, Richard
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Willis, Phil


Prior, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Rendel, David



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruffley, David
Mr. Nicholas Winterton and


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Sir George Young.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes the First Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC300, and the Government response thereto, Cm 4737; considers that the Select Committee system has proved its worth as a means of increasing the scrutiny and accountability of Government, endorsing in particular the Liaison Committee's judgement of the value of Select Committees (in particular paragraphs 4, 5 and 24 of the Committee's First Report); commends the initiatives already taken by the Government and by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the accountability of Ministers to Parliament, including the provision in Westminster Hall of the opportunity for some 200 extra back bench debates each Session, and over 20 debates on Select Committee reports; but does not believe that concentrating patronage it the hands of three senior Members of the House would increase the transparency or effectiveness of the Committee system.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Question agreed to.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,

That—
(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Rail Freight

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I compliment the Government, the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and his ministerial colleagues on their positive and constructive approach to rail freight. They have shown that they believe that rail has a significant and growing role to play in freight transport in Britain, which is most welcome. For many decades, Governments gave little serious attention to rail freight. It has been the poorest of poor relations in the transport fraternity, while the development of road transport has dominated departmental thinking and grown at an extraordinary rate.
Rail passengers have been the Government's and industry's prime concern, perhaps understandably because they have votes and freight containers do not. As a daily rail commuter, I want a first-rate passenger service, too. Sadly, we have seen in recent weeks that the transportation of people has had its own problems. Those, too, seem set to continue. Our Government have, however, recognised that increasing the amount of freight carried by rail is important for the future and that roads alone cannot take the whole strain of ever-increasing freight volumes. Roads will continue to have the major share of freight traffic and it is unrealistic to imagine that rail will replace road as the primary freight mode. However, the proportion taken by rail should be substantially increased.
I wish to raise three concerns. First, the Government's targets for rail freight are too modest. Secondly, current investment in rail freight is too low, even to achieve the Government's modest targets. Thirdly, Railtrack is not taking rail freight seriously in any case, believing, I suspect, as many have before, that rail freight is inherently uneconomic. Rail freight is commercially profitable elsewhere in the world, even over quite short distances, and can be so in Britain with the right investment.
In their 10-year plan for railways, the Government have established a target of increasing rail freight by 80 per cent. over that decade. That is 8 per cent. per year in simple terms and equivalent to 6 per cent. compound annual growth. That must be set against predicted annual growth in total freight traffic, which would mean that the proportion of freight carried by rail would rise from 7 per cent. to around 10 per cent. A rise of 3 per cent., even if achieved over that 10 years, would still be too small and shows that 80 per cent. of not very much is still not a lot. The Government should therefore raise their sights and set a considerably higher target for rail freight over the next 10 years.
There are a number of reasons for that. The road system will not be able to cope with the likely volumes of freight that we should anticipate for the future. Indeed, the roads have difficulty coping now. If we wish to develop an efficient freight transport network, we must make greater use of rail. The freight transport industry should be developed as a coherent whole, with the full support and co-operation of hauliers and railway operators. Co-operation, not competition, must be the way forward, with rail providing a service to hauliers tailored to hauliers' needs.
Another major reason for increasing rail freight more substantially is that large parts of the economy, and those that are faring less well, will need better freight transport links with the continent of Europe, in particular, if they are to prosper. The north, the midlands, Scotland and Wales must have reliable commercially economic freight links with Europe if they are not to suffer because of their geographical peripherality. Choked roads and unreliable freight links to the ports and channel tunnel will be an increasing disincentive to investors in the English regions and in Scotland and Wales. However, new freight links providing regular and dependable services, especially through the channel tunnel to the continent, could throw an economic lifeline to the industrial heartlands of Britain.
Hauliers tell me that what they really want is a dedicated lorries-on-trains service through the channel tunnel. Indeed, I have been informed this weekend that one haulier could use one whole train each way between Germany and Britain every day.
A less obvious reason for increasing the proportion of freight carried by rail is the enormous cost of road repairs and the congestion that they cause. The Under-Secretary of State will, I am sure, be familiar with the fourth power law linking axle weight to road wear. That states that road wear is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. Thus, doubling axle weight increases road damage by 16 times and tripling axle weight increases it by 81 times. A lorry axle weight may be several times that of a motor car, causing many times the amount of road wear. Lorries have to travel on roads, but shifting thousands of them on to rail every day will be beneficial in public expenditure terms as well as environmentally.
Road repairs cost the Exchequer many millions every year, as well as causing bottlenecks, congestion and delays on the trunk road network, bringing frustration to hauliers and car drivers alike. EWS, the rail freight company, recently drew attention to a Confederation of British Industry estimate that congestion costs the economy £15 billion a year. Taking a larger proportion of road freight off the roads and putting it on to rail would save considerable sums in roads expenditure and save time, fuel and costs for road hauliers.
My second concern is that investment in rail freight is inadequate to meet even the Government's own targets. It seems clear now that the existing strategic rail network is going to have its work cut out simply coping with future growth of passenger traffic. I understand that there are significant and worrying problems on the west coast main line with capacity, signalling and investment needs. Passenger traffic will take pride of place and crowd out freight—especially the serious, long-distance, heavy freight, and most notably international freight using the channel tunnel route.
Writing recently in "Rail Freight Group News", my noble Friend Lord Berkeley said that there is already competition between freight and passenger traffic for existing rail capacity. It is time, he says,
to face up to the challenge of demand for track space exceeding supply.
In any case, high-speed passenger services and much lower-speed freight traffic do not mix. Freight trains have to wait for slots or travel at night. That is not the type of service that will be attractive to hauliers. In Germany,

an experiment was tried recently sending freight trains on high-speed passenger lines at night, but it was later abandoned as a failure.
There is also the gauge problem. It is currently not possible to carry full-size lorries on the backs of trains on the British rail network. A lorries-on-trains service would need new, purpose-built lines. That is already happening on the continent of Europe, notably in southern Germany, and a dedicated freight line is being built from Holland to Germany. The specific investment difficulties should be set in the context of our historically low levels of railway investment. The French and Dutch have specifically invested between two and three times as much in railways as we do in Britain each year, and—goodness me—it shows.
I am informed that the amount of track repairs and modernisation currently being undertaken by Railtrack, even in the current crisis, is barely more than the normal amount of track work that was undertaken in the days of British Rail. If we are serious about rail freight, we have to think much bigger and be much bolder. According to the Rail Freight Group, Railtrack cannot even accommodate today's rail freight on the west coast main line, north of Crewe, once the Virgin tilting train timetable comes into force. It might even sell off all the additional 42 paths south of Rugby to passenger train operators.
My third concern, therefore, is that I am unconvinced about Railtrack's commitment to rail freight. There are optimistic noises in public, but an article by Railtrack in this month's "Railfreight Handbook" is significant. It states:
Achieving the government's target of 80 per cent. growth over the next 10 years would"—
note the conditional—
be our greatest success … It can be done!
That betrays a lack of confidence that even the Government's modest 10-year target can be achieved. With more time, I could provide more statistical and anecdotal information, and I shall do so later, in writing, to my hon. Friend the Minister.
It is clear that what Britain needs is new, dedicated freight line capacity providing full-scale lorries-on-trains services between strategic centres in Britain and the channel tunnel. Such a scheme has been proposed, and my hon. Friend will not be surprised when I refer him to the proposals made by Central Railway. That scheme will provide a spinal link from the north of England, skirting London and then on to the channel tunnel. Perhaps an aorta might be a more appropriate metaphor.

Mr. Stephen Pound: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hopkins: I really have very little time, and I have had only one notice of an intervention. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
The line would make use of old Great Central track bed for much of its length and would link Liverpool with Lille in northern France. It would provide a full-scale lorries-on-trains service, and Central Railway proposes an initial four trains an hour in each direction. It is proposed to build major loading facilities on the route in south Yorkshire, the midlands and close to London, and it will


make use of the currently closed Woodhead tunnel through the Pennines. Later extensions to other parts of Britain could be developed.
If hauliers could load their lorries, swap bodies and containers in the north and then guarantee a time of arrival in northern France. that would bring new life to our industrial heartlands and integrate them more fully in the wider European economy. The Central Railway service would also provide for double-stacked containers, which is effectively two train loads in one train's length.
The scheme is compelling in its logic and would transform rail freight in Britain. My hon. Friend will understand that, in my own best of all possible worlds, I would like to see such schemes developed in the public sector. However, the modern fashion for private development fits entirely with Central Railway's proposals. It is a wholly commercial and commercially viable scheme that will require no Government funding or underwriting.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Whatever the merits or demerits of the freight-only railway, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position in which my constituents—and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and many others—are placed is wholly unacceptable? Their properties are blighted by a scheme proposed by a company with very little in the way of financial substance, yet the company shows no inclination to bring its proposals forward for any formal scrutiny in the short term. That leaves my constituents in an impossible situation.

Mr. Hopkins: I have reminded the hon. Gentleman in previous debates that Central Railway has proposed a generous property compensation scheme that was praised by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Clearly, building any new infrastructure of this kind has effects on the people who live close by. That is inevitable and it would have to be faced by the Government.
The scheme would be linked into the rest of the rail network and would take freight traffic from elsewhere, too. It would make the channel tunnel truly commercially viable and take up the vast amount of spare capacity that the tunnel currently has. Ten years ago, Eurotunnel forecast that there would be 22 million passengers and 11 million tonnes of freight using the tunnel each year. It has actually achieved only 7 million passengers and less than 3 million tonnes of freight less than a third of predicted levels. Boosting passenger numbers will be difficult, so there is a massive capacity for freight growth if only there were an effective delivery system on the British side. A rail freight link to the north of London carrying lorries on trains must be the answer.
Central Railway will take 8,000 to 10,000 lorries off our motorways every day by 2010. The scheme is vital to Britain's future infrastructure needs. If such a scheme had been proposed in France, Germany, Spain or Holland, I am sure it would have been built by now. Central Railway will make a major contribution to Britain's future economic success and it must not be allowed to fail.
There are other important factors in the case for the scheme. European freight is carried on lorries and Central Railway's proposal is the only scheme that meets the needs of hauliers. The existing UK railways cannot take

lorries, and there is ample evidence that Central Railway's proposal is workable. I am informed that Central Railway's construction costs are along the lines of the TGV and the channel tunnel rail link phase 1. It has also been endorsed by SNCF's engineering arm, which believes that Central Railway's operating plan is realistic.
Lorries-on-train operations are a daily practicality across the channel. Central Railway is designed to be compatible with continental freight train standards and works at a European level, fitting in with EU operational objectives. Cross-channel freight is doubling every 10 years, growing much faster than the domestic freight market. Without Central Railway, almost all the additional lorry journeys will be by road, many of them on the M1 passing through my constituency of Luton, North.
If we are serious about raising the proportion of freight carried by rail and about regenerating the industrial regions of Britain, we cannot afford to let this opportunity slip and see the road arteries of Britain clogging up as the years go by, causing serious damage to Britain's future economic health and prospects.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hopkins: I am sorry, but I have too little time.
Over a century ago, Sir Edward Watkin had a vision of a channel tunnel linked to the great central railways. Sadly, he became ill and died before he could see his vision come to fruition. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give his most serious attention to the Central Railway scheme and to ponder the thought that if he and our right hon. and hon. Friends lend their support to the Central Railway scheme, they could be credited with having made possible a venture of historic proportions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing this debate. I also thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of the key issues that he wished to raise in his speech. The issues that he raised in respect of the challenge facing the rail freight industry are of great interest to the Government. They are precisely what we are addressing through the implementation of our integrated transport policy.
The Government inherited a railway system that was suffering from years of under-investment. It had been fragmented by privatisation and had no framework for the strategic planning of the industry as a whole. It is clear that mistakes were made in the privatisation process. Since 1997, we have been working to turn the industry round, and there have been tangible results in that time. After many years of decline, the amount of freight moved by rail volume has risen by nearly a quarter, and it continues to grow. Much of that has been due to the considerable investment by freight operators. They have invested in new rolling stock and facilities, they are actively pursuing new markets and new operators are emerging. The Government are matching that commitment, as I shall explain.
We are committed to more freight on rail as part of an integrated sustainable freight transport distribution system. We have set out in our 10-year plan for transport an unprecedented investment programme to enhance the capacity and capability of the network. Through the Transport Act 2000, we have established the Strategic Rail Authority with a remit to promote rail freight. We have also revitalised the freight grant regime to encourage companies to transfer more freight off the roads. We have made it clear that we wish to see greater investment in the railways to cater for growth in both passenger and freight traffic over the next decade. We have asked the SRA to take forward the detailed plans for applying that investment. As a first step, it will shortly produce its strategic agenda.
The Transport Act 2000 marks a major step forward in delivering the Government's vision for transport in this country, and provides for the development of an integrated approach to the transport of passengers and freight. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority had already started discussions with the industry about its plans for rail freight.
As well as setting up the SRA proper, the Transport Act provides a framework for influencing the behaviour of key industry players, such as Railtrack, in the public interest. For example, it will allow the SRA to apply to the Rail Regulator for directions in respect of railway facility enhancements. This new power will create the right to compel Railtrack, and other rail facility owners, to carry out investment and enhancement schemes on terms determined by the regulator and not by Railtrack or the other owners.
The SRA has also taken over from my Department the responsibility for freight grants. Indeed, the Government have made more than 130 grant offers since 1997, including a record 47 grants during the last financial year. Grant payments will soon reach £100 million, diverting close to 40 million tonnes of freight from Britain's roads.
We want to make even more use of the money available to get freight on rail and inland waterways, where that is justified by the environmental benefits. The money is there to be used if the industry comes forward with the right projects. We have established the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that development of rail freight becomes part of the strategic management of the network. The SRA is already undertaking work to improve the grant regime and to develop its strategic plan.
The SRA's freight strategy will include modernisation and increased capacity on key routes such as the west coast and east coast main lines, upgrading of freight routes to major ports such as Felixstowe and to the channel tunnel, the elimination of strategic bottlenecks on the rail network, better integration with other modes through investment in new freight interchanges and investment in rolling stock.
My hon. Friend mentioned Central Railway's proposals as a possible solution. Of course, I am aware that he has supported the scheme over many years. I confirm that the company has informed my Department of its wish to abandon its proposed Transport and Works Act 1992 application to gain approval for its scheme and has instead requested the Government's support for a Bill.
It must be for the company to decide whether it wishes to allow its proposals to be examined openly under the TWA procedure. That is the normal means of considering infrastructure projects falling within the scope of the 1992 Act. It would not preclude the possibility of the Government promoting a hybrid Bill if we considered that to be an appropriate means of authorising a scheme. However, it remains the case that Central Railway has not submitted its proposals. Bearing that in mind, I cannot give any assurance now that the Government would wish to sponsor a Bill to support the project. It is, of course, open to any hon. Member to propose a Bill in support of a private scheme.

Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hill: Very briefly.

Mr. Hammond: The Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends have said in the past that they cannot pass comment on the Central Railway scheme because of the possibility of having to judge it in a quasi-judicial role if it were the subject of a TWA application. The company has made it clear that there will be no TWA application and that it is seeking the Government's political support for the scheme. When and how will the Government make their view known to the House of Commons and to the wider public?

Mr. Hill: I was coming to that. We have asked the SRA to review the Central Railway proposals, and it goes without saying that, until we have seen that, it would be both inappropriate and impossible for the Government to take a view.
I am aware that Central Railway maintains that its project is to be an entirely privately funded scheme and that it is economically viable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North will appreciate that it is vital that all the technical and commercial aspects are examined carefully for a proposal of this scale and complexity. That is why the SRA is initiating a review of Central Railway's proposals.
My hon. Friend is aware that the scheme has, albeit in a different form, been put to the House before, when it was overwhelmingly rejected. If the Government are to consider supporting a Bill, it is right that the SRA should seek to learn more about the proposals before taking a view. I have outlined the basis of the Government's commitment to rail freight and the SRA's role in helping to achieve the industry's objectives. Any review that the SRA undertakes should be carried out in the context of our 10-year plan and the authority's own strategy for freight. I shall follow the SRA's review of Central Railway's proposals with interest.
New facilities require land and the support of the local community. That is why, we published guidance last March for local transport plans, which looks to local authorities to take account of opportunities for a greater use of rail freight in their areas. In their land use planning, we will expect authorities to protect sites and routes that could be important in the development of new infrastructure, to promote opportunities for rail connections through industrial sites and to ensure that disused transport routes with the potential for reuse are not unnecessarily severed.
In December, we announced details of the local transport capital settlement in response to the transport plans submitted by local authorities in July. We are


allocating £8.4 billion of public investment over the next five years to be spent locally on projects identified at local level. A good proportion of that funding will be spent on public and integrated transport and smaller schemes, which may include developing facilities for rail freight.
I am encouraged by the enthusiasm that local authorities have shown in considering the role of rail freight in their local transport plans. Underpinning all that is the 10-year plan. We are planning for private and public expenditure of £60 billion on the railway over the 10-year period. During that time, we envisage a further 50 per cent. growth in passenger journeys by rail, an 80 per cent. increase in freight volumes and a further significant increase in rail's share of the freight market to around 10 per cent.
The £60 billion includes capital investments of £38 billion for renewal and expansion of passenger infrastructure, £7 billion for the replacement and expansion of the passenger rolling stock fleet—around 6,000 new vehicles—and £4 billion for investment in additional freight capacity. I seriously question my hon. Friend's claim that our rail freight targets are modest. The Government are committing huge sums of investment to that development.

Mr. Grieve: Does the Minister agree that any successful freight scheme must be compatible with the expansion of passenger use, which the Government are greatly promoting? For instance, if the Central Railway scheme resulted in an inability to use the Chiltern line in my constituency for passenger commuter services, which have expanded and doubled over the past few years, that would be a strange environmental benefit as it would put thousands of people into their cars and on to the roads who currently use the train.

Mr. Hill: As I am wont to say, I have some hinterland on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to consult Hansard for the debates Central Railway in 1995—the previous Parliament—he would find evidence of that. Under the TWA proposal or the hybrid Bill proposal now being considered by the SRA, it is incumbent on the Government to adopt an entirely neutral stance at this stage.
Nearly half the £60 billion that I mentioned will be Government funding. We would have provided some of that money in any case: for example, £5 billion for the channel tunnel rail link; between £5 billion and £10 billion for continuing franchise support; and £1 billion for expenditure on such items as the residuary liabilities of the British Railways Board and contributions to railway industry pensions.
However, a great deal of the Government funding is new money—to halt the decline in passenger operating subsidies and to promote the biggest rail expansion programme for more than a century. We launched the new £7 billion rail modernisation fund, which will lever in substantial amounts of private capital and will provide support for both passenger and freight enhancements.
The new fund will allow the SRA and the industry together to formulate a long-term investment programme for rail—we estimate nearly £50 billion over 10 years—encompassing a range of funding mechanisms, including capital grant and debt finance. The passenger-freight split will depend on franchise replacement and on the conclusions of the SRA's rail freight strategy.
More generally, the 10-year plan provides much greater certainty as a basis for long-term investment. The stop-go attitude to investment followed by previous Administrations created a climate of uncertainty in the supply industry. Time scales for supply and payback are long, both for rolling stock and infrastructure, that stop-go approach clearly discouraged many suppliers from investing as they otherwise might have done. Clearly, that has to change.
Of course, Hatfield dented the progress that the industry had been making. Although there are lessons to be learned from the disruption over recent months, it is vital that everyone involved in the industry continues to act together to ensure that the interests of all customers are paramount. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport is leading the rail recovery action group to maintain regular contact with the industry and to ensure that it is wholly focused on getting the railroad running normally as soon as possible. The group includes a freight representative and is scrutinising carefully the impact of the recovery plan on freight services.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North that whatever their immediate impact, the recent difficulties on the railways will not deflect us from our long-term goal. The Government have confidence in rail freight and high expectations of it. So far, the rail freight industry has returned that confidence with investment on a scale not seen for decades—in vehicles, terminals, staff and new business, with real growth in freight volume, and with the arrival of new operators who are giving the established players a run for their money. They, too, can see that rail freight has a real future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.